The term "prison–industrial complex" (PIC) is used to attribute the rapid expansion of the US inmate
population to the political influence of private prison companies and businesses that supply goods and
services to government prison agencies.[2] The term is derived from the "military–industrial complex"
of the 1950s.[3]
Such groups include corporations that contract prison labor, construction companies, surveillance
technology vendors, companies that operate prison food services and medical facilities,[4] private probation
companies,[4] lawyers, and lobby groups that represent them. Activist groups such as the National Organization
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) have argued that the prison-industrial complex is perpetuating
a flawed belief that imprisonment is an effective solution to social problems such as homelessness,
unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy.
The term 'prison industrial complex' has been used to describe a similar issue in other countries' prisons
of expanding populations.[5]
The promotion of prison-building as a job creator and the use of inmate labor are also cited as elements
of the prison-industrial complex. The term often implies a network of participants who are motivated
by financial profit rather than solely the goal of punishing or rehabilitating criminals or reducing
crime rates. Proponents of this view, including civil rights organizations such as the Rutherford Institute[6]
and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),[7] believe that the desire for monetary gain has led
to the growth of the prison industry and the number of incarcerated individuals.
20170503 : Truble with DNS tests and other forensic evidence tests: 90 percent of crime labs in the United States are affiliated with law enforcement agencies by scientists who seek to please the police departments employing them. One of the worst examples of the fraud committed by forensic scientists involved Joyce Gilchrist, who for years testified at trials in the courts of Oklahoma City, claiming that she had made scientific tests that proved the guilt of those accused of murder, rape, and other crimes of violence. Between 1980 and 2001, Gilchrist had testified in thousands of cases, including 23 in which defendants were sentenced to death. Eleven of those sent to death row were executed on the basis of Gilchrist's scientific evidence. In 2001, she was dismissed from her job after the FBI found that she had deliberately withheld evidence from the defense, claimed to have achieved scientific results that no other scientist had ever achieved, and failed to perform tests that might have cleared the accused. ( May 03, 2017 , www.questia.com )
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of
time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that
glorifies it."
- Frédéric Bastiat, French economist
If there is an absolute maxim by which the American government seems to operate, it is that
the taxpayer always gets ripped off.
Their livelihoods depend on towns, cities, and states sending more people to prison and
keeping them there." Private prisons are also doling out harsher punishments for infractions by
inmates in order to keep them locked up longer in order to
"boost profits" at taxpayer expense .
If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his
defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people
that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair
chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In
such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking
for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the
law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this
realm-in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or
selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest
danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies.
It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being
unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political
views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
Rep. Maxine Waters of California, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, joined
demonstrations this weekend in Minnesota. She told supporters that if the Chauvin trial
verdict goes the wrong way, "we've got to not only stay in the street but we've got to fight
for justice."
You may recall a president got pilloried a while ago for urging his supporters to "fight"
for their desired outcome. It was noted then that the term is a well-worn rhetorical phrase
that doesn't necessarily amount to a literal incitement to violence. But there can't be much
doubt about the import of what Ms. Waters said. She made her remarks in Brooklyn Center, a few
miles from the barricaded Minneapolis courthouse where the Chauvin trial is taking place and
the site of the killing last weekend of a black man by a police officer. The place has been
aflame for the past week in an orgy of rioting.
The Handler standard, or the Maxine maxim "the idea that we don't really need a trial to
know whether someone is guilty of a heinous crime" has always had its adherents. There have
surely been miscarriages of justice "acquittals of guilty people and convictions of innocent
ones" throughout history. The jury system is never perfect.
But what's frighteningly new about our current climate is that the rejection of apparently
unwelcome trial outcomes is now part of the dominant progressive critique of our longstanding
political and civic order. If U.S. institutions are the product of white-supremacist
exploitation "as is essentially the consensus of the people who run the government, most
corporations, and leading cultural institutions" then the judicial system itself is inherently
and systemically unjust. If the principle of equality before the law is to be supplanted by the
objective of "equity" in outcome, then only outcomes that serve the higher objective of
collective racial justice can be considered legitimate.
So trials that produce the "wrong" verdict are not just miscarriages of justice. They are an
indictment of the entire system.
The ascendancy of this new progressive radicalism adds a frightening element to the unease
the nation feels this week as the jury deliberates in Minneapolis. By all accounts the trial of
Mr. Chauvin has been rigorous, methodical and fair. The prosecution seemed to make a strong
case that Mr. Floyd died at least in part as a result of the officer's actions. The defense may
have sowed some doubts about whether Mr. Chavin's intent rose to the level of culpability
required of the most serious charges.
But under our new rules, the jury's verdict will be tolerated only if it goes the "right"
way.
This rejection of the legitimacy of the judicial process is rooted in the same neo-Marxist
ideology""a race- and identity-based interpretation of structuralism""that holds sway over the
minds of much of our ruling class.
To the old Marxists, the capitalists were the exploiters. In "The ABC of Communism,"
published in 1920, Bolshevik leaders Nikolai Bukharin and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky used language
that sounds strikingly familiar today. They denounced the courts as instruments of "bourgeois
justice," which was "carried on under the guidance of laws passed in the interests of the
exploiting class," and recommended instead the establishment of "proletarian courts."
In one of the more savage ironies of history, some two decades later the authors themselves
were tried by such courts under Josef Stalin and sentenced to death.
Yet even Stalin thought some kind of judicial proceeding was necessary. Our modern
revolutionaries would dispense even with show trials.
E
Eli Hauser SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago (Edited)
Red Queen Rules. Sentence. Verdict. Accusation. Admission of Guilt.
Mark Robbins SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
Liberals have no need for trials with an assumption of innocence. At all times, they KNOW
what is right.
Chris Madison SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
We are living through a "throw the baby out with the bath" moment. Extremists are labeling
anything which doesn't go their way as "systemically racist." If there is no jurisprudence
and due process, no system of laws addressing a variety of crimes, but only the cry for
"justice now" without defining what justice looks like according to law, then anarchy has
taken the place of justice. Ms. Handler is entitled to her opinion. I am glad she is not in a
position of leadership. Congresswoman Maxine Waters likes to make statements which "stir the
pot," potentially raising the "rage level" across our nation. She should know better, but
doesn't. Our nation is on the cusp of a moment when we must intentionally decide who we are
legally, morally, and Constitutionally. Emotions are insufficient for this moment.
Christopher Jones SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
This essay would have tremendous weight if there was not a video of the murder. Absent that
it is stupefyingly ignorant. "The prosecution seemed to make a strong case that Mr. Floyd
died at least in part as a result of the officer's actions." Really, sir? A video literally
showing the officer kneeling on Mr. Floyd's neck until he passed out and later died. Are you
suggesting that he would have died on his own had the officer not done this?
You are attempting to seem reasonable with your pleas for due process, but you just come
across as obtuse. A video of a man murdering another man and your like, no I don't believe
it. There has to be another explanation.
Tad Story SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
So your saying Mr. Floyd's use of a Highly addictive and equally deadly narcotic on top of
already severe heart condition to which your camera did not display played no role as to the
outcome? Considering the use of Fentanyl is 900 times more deadly than crack-cocaine I feel
it needed to be discussed and weighed, to which it was but the mob had their torches ready
and that carried as much or even more weight, Maxine made sure of that..
beryl silver SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago (Edited)
The article failed to mention the words protesters need "to get more confrontational" Maxine
Waters used.
Michael Lapolla SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
It has been obvious to us that the state of Minnesota offered Derek Chauvin as a sacrifice on
the altar of expediency. Witness the immediate and joyous victory laps by the state AG. It
just took a while and a show trial. It is obvious that the jury had no stomach for another
outcome. This is what you vote for - this is what you get.
And we have a Capitol police person murdering an unarmed trespasser, but our DOJ sees and
hears no evil and utters not a word.
What a national embarrassment. Go back to sleep Minnesota.
FRANK HERMAN SUBSCRIBER 2 weeks ago
He wasn't on his neck. Even the prosecution witness admitted, that when looked at from other
angles, that the cop was on his shoulder blade.
Tim Taylor SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
Something to think about in the current culture of policing:
Most dangerous jobs in U.S. 1. Logging 2. Aircraft pilots/flight engineers 3. Derrick
operators 4. Roofers 5. Garbage collectors 6. Iron workers. 7. Delivery drivers 8. Farmers.
9. Firefighting supervisors 10. Power linemen 11. Agricultural workers 12. Crossing guards
13. Crane operators 14. Construction helpers. 15. Landscaping supervisors 16. Highway
maintenance workers. 17. Cement masons 18. Small engine mechanics. 19. Supervisors of
mechanics 20. Heavy equipment mechanics. 21. Grounds maintenance workers 22. Police
Officers.
What Maxine does not seem to understand is that demonizing the police works against gun
control efforts.
The more that the citizenry believes the police cannot be trusted to protect them, the
more citizens will seek to protect themselves, including purchasing and carrying
firearms.
Kenneth Gimbel SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
Whew. I guess Minneapolis won't be torched tonight. Or, maybe, just a little bit to satisfy
the mob.
Verne Thibodeaux SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
There are a lot of "undocumented shoppers" who are very disappointed today.
Michael Havey SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
As I've been saying since the first day of the trial, only the dumbest, most gullible, least
informed Americans believed that Derek Chauvin was innocent.
DK Brand SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
All that without due process being applied? See, you are the problem when the vast majority
of people who saw the video were horrified and felt the officer was guilty of his death. But
we have a system of laws and due process protects everyone, even the seemingly obviously
guilty. There are people who are caught red handed every day who receive the same due
process. So stop crowing about your imaginary opponents and accept that our system has worked
as designed.
William Coburn SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
innocent
He did not need to be found innocent, just not guilty.
Nidge M SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
Talk about dark comedy ........
IF Chauvin is convicted the seemingly not very legally au fait Maxine Waters just handed
his team perfect grounds to appeal against any conviction.
The whole situation is peturbing at a frightening number of levels 'though.
What will US cities do if 10%, 20% even 70% their Cops quit?
What will they do even if they don't quit but 'work to the letter of the rules' and slow all
action to a crawl?
Its not too unthinkable given the record of violence the very large man Chauvin was
kneeling on in the course of the arrest.
And add to that the somewhat inept but from the video plausible Police woman now
incacerated for shooting instead of tasering another career criminal .......... Which from
this distance appears to be a based on political rather than legal considerations.
Would you be a cop?
Meanwhile politicians from both main US parties appear to be giving their blessing to
those who wish to userp the rule of law .......... That's viable is it?
Nidge M SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago (Edited)
No, Floyd was not resisting arrest actively & constantly for 9 minutes.
But
Floyd was a very large male with a record of extream violence, drug abuse and
unpredictability.
Its hardly novel for an aprehended person to fake placidity, then when their restrainers
relax to explode into extream violence.
I am not asserting what Chauvin did was right or wrong ........ But I do think its a
reaction which anyone who has had to deal with violent offenders would regard as a pretty
understandable reaction.
I also wonder might those who are so ready to jump on the bandwagon, grandstanding &
howling in condemnation precipitate something far beyond their expectations.
I wonder too what would happen if the majority of those so quick to condemn were handed
responsibility for doing the policing job people like Chauvin have to do.
How would you do it?
Lori Crossley SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
I don't think anyone wants policing like Chauvin did it. It led to the death of a man. There
were a lot of potential outcomes to this arrest. I would not blame any officer for being
overly cautious based on Floyd's arrest record - and yes, it does count.
But Chauvin was not alone in making this arrest. He had assistance which was not utilized.
Do people fake injury to get away from police officers? I am sure they do.
But there were 9 long minutes when that was not happening. There are thousands of police
officers who leave their homes each day to walk into potentially violent situations. And they
do their job and go home at night (with little thanks) and did not make the same choice
Chauvin did. His trial was fair and the verdict is in. The process worked for Chauvin - not
so much for Floyd.
Mark Allen SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
I grew up on the block where the police station is located, in an apartment often captured in
the footage of the rioting. And while it did make the local papers, the national news has
failed to report that the folks living in those apartments cannot sleep (due to the rioters)
and have to put wet towels over their windows to keep out the teargas (due to the police).
And the irony in this is that the overwhelming majority of those apartment dwellers are
working-poor, persons of color.
Let that sink in.
Scott Mote SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
For the regressives and BLMers, those apartment dwellers are just collateral damage. Maybe
BLM will move them into a BLM mansion.
John Smith SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
Great insights Mr. Baker.
Strange how video evidence clearly convicts the subject in the minds of leftists. They
appear to be able to assign motive and punishment based on their emotional appraisal. We have
a sitting California Congresswoman stating this on video tape.
Well, we are not to believe every video tape. Remember Jussie Smollett? They did the same
to the unnamed racists, who assaulted Mr. Smollett - according to his version of events. All
muscular non black males were guilty, until individually cleared. The usual leftists in
politics, media, and entertainment joined Jussie.
Unfortunately, Jussie's version of events was false. He hired two black men to "assault"
him, then put together his soap opera version of the script. Since both stories could not be
true, no one went to jail. This is what politicians with law degrees have contributed to our
Republic.
Yes, he still faces felony charges. But it is more than two years hence. Speedy trial?
Paul Stroud SUBSCRIBER 3 weeks ago
For all of most of our lives we've been able to rely on a civil society that recognized its'
faults, if even after a period of time, and took hard steps to correct them. This is now at
risk as acceptable "civil disobedience" becomes "violent disobedience". We can no longer look
at other parts of the world that are continually wrenched apart by violent, factional
conflict and destruction and think, "oh, at least it can't happen here". It is happening
here, and it is escalating. I hope I am wrong, but I fear for our children and grandchildren.
1. at the start of jury selection in the Chauvin case, Floyd's "family" were awarded $27 million civil verdict against
Minneapolis in a highly publicized MSM "event". THEY didn't try to keep it quiet. THEY promoted it.
2. Maxine Waters
3. Doxxing of jury members
4. This BLM guy, subject of this article
Yancey Ward 9 hours ago remove link
I think the real key with this particular issue will be this- did the judge deny the
defense a dismissal for cause on this juror. There is no way this juror should have been on
the jury in a just trial, and I think the evidence is strong that he flat out lied during the
voir dire.
Yancey Ward 9 hours ago
I think the real key with this particular issue will be this- did the judge deny the
defense a dismissal for cause on this juror. There is no way this juror should have been on
the jury in a just trial, and I think the evidence is strong that he flat out lied during the
voir dire.
Hello Kitty 7 hours ago
The trial never should have been held in MN. Why couldn't it be held somewhere else? Rigged.
Nona Yobiznes 12 hours ago (Edited)
Yes, you're right. I'd even say it was impossible for him to have a fair trial. This
situation resulted in billions of dollars in property damage, dozens of murders, and
thousands of injuries. The terrorists who committed these acts were on standby during the
trial. Everyone knew what would happen if acquitted.
The situation was not framed as an unfortunate incident between police and a civilian, it
was widely taken to be symbolic of white supremacist institutional power oppressing a
helpless black man. Even if you as a juror believed in his innocence, you would be putting
the lives of your family, yourself, and your community at risk by following through. You'd be
sending a message that you're a racist, that you believe in the genocide of blacks by cops,
you'd be doxxed, and probably killed. Chauvin was never, ever going to get fairness.
Even if he did contribute to Floyd's death, the murder charges are overkill.
pfmonte1 12 hours ago
He is guilty, perhaps, of negligent homicide. Truth is though that he probably is NOT.
ZHakespeare 12 hours ago
He has a history of violent acts. Chauvin is a predator with no blue license to commit crimes anymore.
Fiscal.Enema 11 hours ago (Edited)
This has nothing to do with HIS guilt or innocence but the SANCTITY of the jury
system. There is no way this conviction stands.
There is no hope of a fair trial for him anywhere. It will be too expensive for another trial. When the verdict is overturned. The CHIMPS will riot and loot
chinese.sniffles 13 hours ago
The man was sacrificed. Guilty or not, did not get a fair trial.
GunnerySgtHartman 13 hours ago (Edited) remove link
This is shaping up to be another Lance Ito/OJ Simpson situation, the only difference being
that OJ was found not guilty at trial.
TBT or not TBT 12 hours ago
Not. The 140lb Chauvin didn't kill this 220lb man with a knee to his shoulder blade. Even
the prosecution wouldn't say it was his neck, because body cams showed it wasn't. The
evidence shows a drug overdose and health complications.
nsurf9 13 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Its called "Reasonable Doubt."
Unknown to the officers, Floyd, literally had the #1 Overdose Drug in the USA - dissolving
in his mouth - the entire time he resisted being lawfully arrested.
Never mind that the pills tested-out to be the "#1 Overdose Drug in the USA" with Floyd's
saliva and DNA on them. Never mind that Floyd literally spat-out two pills onto the
floorboard of the police SUV, precisely when he uttered "I ate too much drugs." And, never
mind that - unknown to the officers - those #1 Overdose pills were dissolving and
sublingually going straight into felony-fentanyl Floyd's bloodstream - the whole time he was
handcuffed (and likely even before he passed the $20 bill in the store and while he was about
to drive a motor vehicle) and the whole time he relentlessly resisting arrest until he died
of them - with a combined 16.6 ngs of fentenyl/norfentyl total found in his blood - which is
several-fold times more than enough to overdose and kill.
No one asked George, if he was doing drugs while in the back of the police SUV, when he
uttered "I ate too much drugs." But, that was precisely the moment when he spat-out the two
remaining remnants of the fentenyl/amphetamine pills/hits and he likely began overdosing.
No officer hit Floyd - not even once. And, Chauvin's knee . . . did nothing and the
Autopsy proves it did nothing to injure Floyd. And, further, the officers had called for an
ambulance - twice - during the arrest
If Officer Chauvin doesn't get a fair trial . . . none of us will be assured to ever get
one, because the judicial system, itself, will have already failed !!!
Dumpster Elite 13 hours ago
"...whether Mitchell "lied about, or failed to provide complete answers on whether he has engaged in public activism, or
whether he has any affiliations with BLM that go beyond the mere wearing of the shirt."
Let's say I'm on a jury. I vote to convict a black guy of murdering a white man.
Then a few weeks later, there's a photo of me with some pals. We're all wearing "Proud
Boys" T-shirts and hats, and we are photographed at a "Get out the Republican Vote"
get-together.
Do you THINK that ANYONE is gonna believe that I was impartial??? "...whether he has any
affiliations with BLM that go beyond the mere wearing of the shirt." Gee, I don't
know??? The mere WEARING of a ph ucking BLM shirt??? How much more does he have to do??? If
you think this guy was in ANY way impartial, you've got a screw loose.
Chauvin will get at LEAST a re-trial, if not a complete mistrial.
Osmium 12 hours ago
He separately told the Star Tribune that attending the August event was an
"opportunity to be around thousands and thousands of black
people" and "to be a part of something."
If he wanted to be around thousands and thousands of black people, he could visit a
prison.
chubbar 11 hours ago
Or South Chicago.
joshrandall 11 hours ago remove link
George Floyd resisted arrest throughout the process. In the police vehicle and on the
ground. There is video evidence of this.
If you don't want police using force against arrest resisters, change the law.
When criminals and police are seen equally under the law, the police will lose simply by
attrition. Add no bail laws and your place of living is truly screwed.
Savyindallas 9 hours ago remove link
The juror should be prosecuted. Chauvin should be granted a new trial in a venue that is
fair- BTW-My disclaimers: I was a prosecutor in 2 major cities for 9 years. I also despise
most cops. They are poorly trained by politician police chiefs. They don't do their job right
-- they should be trained with the unquestionable goals and beliefs of "serve and protect",
rather than fear and intimidate.
Too many abuse and disrespect white people as well as Brown and black people, but liberals
and BLM types do not care about this. Officers who do not understand their proper role need
to be reformed, retrained and replaced by men of honor, courage and who are instilled with a
proper sense of civic duty.
All being said, Derek Chauvin is a human being -- an individual who should be judged
fairly on the facts and merits of his case--not some insane political agenda of Marxists who
have brought fear and intimidation into this circus of a trial and effectively and unfairly
swayed this timid jury IMHO.
fudge punch 5 hours ago remove link
Who was murdered? Floyd died of a heart condition exacerbated by opioid intoxication. I
would think a crucial element of a murder conviction would be a murder victim. This case is
conspicuously absent one of those.
Foe Jaws 11 hours ago
First it was the White cops, next it was White Boeing and Coke employees. White Americans
better wake up fast. The USA is a viciously anti-White Stalinist Corporate Oligarchy.
the6thBook PREMIUM 9 hours ago
I doubt it. Sounds like Jurors lied and cheated to get on the Jury with the purpose of
convicting. They had one that wasn't a BLM activist, that is why it took 10 hours instead of
two. Hell maybe that was even fake to try to make it more believable. This probably wasn't
the only question he lied about and not the only juror that was bent on getting
"justice".
thezone 12 hours ago
Easy appeal. He clearly lied about his tremendous bias.
Chauvin likely gets convicted either way. But this guy definitely is on the hook for
creating the perfect appeal.
Texman 12 hours ago
This guy should be prosecuted for lying on the jury questionnaire which is a court
document. However, never going to happen.
On March 20, at the Washington, D.C. Central Detention Centre, inmate Ryan Samsel, who was
taken into custody as a suspect and handcuffed, was severely beaten by two prison guards.
They smashed his face, broke his nose, knocked out his jaw, injured his eye and brought the
man to a state of mental disorder. He spent the night following the beating in a cell
unconscious, without medical help.
A little reminder of Montecristo Navalny's pains in the dungeon
A recent interest among government officials in reducing prison populations as a way to cut
costs, stemming from the 2008 Great Recession that resulted in significant budget deficits, has
placed renewed emphasis on the importance of halfway houses. As more prisoners are released
there is a corresponding need for more post-release housing – including reentry
facilities.
Loosely defined as a "halfway" point for prisoners between incarceration and freedom,
halfway houses have experienced a number of problems that indicate the industry is in need of
systemic improvements. If states continue the trend of reducing their prison populations and
more federal prisoners are released due to sentencing reforms [see, e.g., PLN, Aug.
2014, p.26], then halfway houses – also known as Community Corrections Centers (CCCs) and
Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) – will have to increase their capacity as well as the
quantity and quality of the transitional services they provide.
An Industry Plagued with Problems
Although some halfway houses are adequately managed and staffed with competent
professionals, others are operated more for profit than an interest in helping offenders
successfully return to society. Too many incidents involving poorly-supervised halfway house
residents and indifferent, or even criminal, behavior by employees have occurred in almost
every state as well as the federal prison system.
A well-managed halfway house provides a safe environment for soon-to-be released prisoners;
some may have been in jail for relatively short periods of time while others might have been
locked up for years or even decades. A halfway house's principal goal of providing a smooth
transition back to society provides the first line of defense against recidivism. Halfway house
residents often have few current ties to the community to which they are released, and even if
they do, may not have family or friends to assist them. They need viable reentry services,
including job placement and housing assistance, and often require substance abuse programs. Too
often, though, halfway houses are viewed by their owners and operators as little more than a
revenue source.
However poor a halfway house might be in providing effectual services and programs, many
times it is the only available option. For some state prisoners nearing release, placement in
halfway houses is mandatory; other states require no time spent at a reentry facility.
According to the non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts, prisoners in eight states are allowed to
"max out" their sentences with no reentry programs to smooth their return to the community. In
those states, about 40% of prisoners are released with no transitional services.
"Now, policymakers on both sides of the aisle are starting to realize that if you're serious
about public safety, you need more effective strategies," observed Adam Gelb, director of Pew's
Public Safety Performance Project.
According to an April 2014 recidivism report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 49.7% of
offenders return to prison within three years after release and 55.1% return within five years.
Clearly, most state and federal correctional facilities do a poor job of "correcting" prisoners
and preparing them for release, which puts an even greater burden on halfway houses to supply
reentry services.
If the promise of the recent flurry of prison population reductions and sentencing reforms
across the nation is to be realized, halfway houses must adapt to new challenges and increased
responsibilities. Such reforms will be rendered meaningless if a large percentage of
newly-released prisoners re-offend and are re-incarcerated.
Despite this potential crisis, there is little sign that either state corrections officials
or the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is addressing shortcomings in the current halfway house system.
Many reentry facilities are poorly-managed and monitored, with violence, drug use and escapes
that are aggravated by widespread indifference and misconduct by staff members.
Further, halfway house programs sometimes reflect a corrupt system that awards contracts on
the basis of political favoritism or cronyism rather than the ability to reduce recidivism;
halfway house contracts are sometimes seen as way for government officials to reward political
backers and campaign contributors.
In any other business or industry, the level of failure and corruption present at some
halfway houses would result in wholesale employee terminations and changes in management, but
as in many correctional facilities, there is little accountability.
Some companies and organizations that operate halfway houses try to do their best to provide
the services that soon-to-be-released prisoners need. Dismas Charities, for example, which runs
reentry facilities nationwide, has a good reputation in the industry. While even Dismas has had
its share of problems, it seems to genuinely care about the quality of its transitional
services.
According to Dismas, "Our history has taught us that, to be effective in the process of
reintegration, we need to focus on three critical areas that have proven to deliver the best
results: Education, Employment, and Support. Each program employs evidence-based practices, and
the use of validated risk/needs assessments to reduce recidivism." Additionally, "A critical
component of all our work is a focus on helping our residents obtain meaningful employment.
Through employment, our residents repay their debts to society and become responsible,
independent citizens, taxpayers, parents, and contributors to the community."
Unfortunately, not all halfway houses are focused on reentry services and programs. States
that have faced significant problems with halfway houses include New Jersey, Florida and
Pennsylvania. The federal prison system's use of contract halfway houses has also not been
exempt from criticism.
CEC in New Jersey
New Jersey has embarked on a grand experiment, shifting thousands of prisoners from
expensive-to-run state prisons into less costly, privately-operated halfway houses. The state's
prison system has under 25,000 beds while approximately 3,500 offenders and parolees are housed
in around two dozen halfway houses. But the system is not without its problems; about 5,100
residents have absconded from halfway houses since 2005, and former employees and residents
report that drug and alcohol use, crime and violence are rampant at some facilities.
The state's largest player in the private halfway house industry is Community Education
Centers (CEC), a New Jersey-based for-profit company that manages jails, prisons and
transitional centers throughout the United States. The firm operates six large halfway house
facilities in New Jersey that contain 1,900 of the state's reentry beds. CEC also runs the
900-bed Albert M. "Bo" Robinson Assessment and Treatment Center (Robinson Center), which
functions as both a halfway house and intake center for state prisoners transitioning into the
halfway house system. Prisoners deemed low risk by CEC are transferred from the Robinson Center
to other halfway houses, including those operated by other companies.
CEC is deeply enmeshed in New Jersey politics. The state's Governor, Chris Christie, was
registered as a lobbyist for the company in 2000 and 2001. He later maintained close ties with
CEC, visiting and praising the company's facilities while serving as a U.S. Attorney – a
position that has little to do with state corrections.
Further, William J. Palatucci, a senior vice president at CEC, was Christie's close friend,
political advisor and former law partner. Palatucci served as co-chair of Christie's 2010
inaugural committee. After Christie became governor in 2010, he hired the son-in-law of John J.
Clancy, CEC's founder and CEO, to work as an assistant in the governor's office.
Such is CEC's political clout that, in the 1990s, state regulators allowed the company to
set up a nonprofit organization called Education and Health Centers of America (EHCA) to skirt
the state's requirement that only nonprofit agencies receive contracts to operate halfway
houses. EHCA, which has a mere ten employees, contracts with New Jersey to provide halfway
houses, which are then managed by CEC. Clancy receives a $351,346 annual salary from EHCA,
which is required to disclose its financial reports, in addition to the salary he receives from
CEC.
The primary purpose of EHCA appears to be to funnel the millions of dollars it gets from
state and county agencies to CEC as its sole "subcontractor" to operate halfway houses.
Therefore, the vast majority of the $71 million CEC received from the state and various New
Jersey counties in fiscal year 2011 came through EHCA. In 2011, New Jersey's Comptroller
criticized the state's contracts with halfway houses and singled out EHCA, citing its close
connections to CEC. [See: PLN, July 2012, p.24].
The total state and county budget for private halfway houses in New Jersey was $105 million
in FY 2011. With so much money at stake, there are concerns whether reentry facilities are
providing competent and cost effective services. One persistent problem has been a high number
of escapes by halfway house residents.
An Epidemic of Escapes
"The system is a mess," declared Thaddeus B. Caldwell, a senior state corrections
investigator who spent years tracking escapees from halfway houses. "No matter how many
escaped, no matter how many were caught, no matter how many committed heinous acts while they
were on the run, they still kept releasing more guys to halfway houses, and it kept happening
over and over again."
The number of escapes from halfway houses astonished even people involved in the corrections
system – 46 escapes in September 2011, 39 in October, 40 in November and 38 in December.
After he instituted reforms, Governor Christie bragged that "only" 181 residents absconded from
halfway houses in the first five months of 2012.
About 10,000 New Jersey state prisoners and parolees pass through halfway houses each year.
CEC officials have used that number to claim the escape rate from their facilities is
"staggeringly low." However, that argument holds little water when one compares the escape rate
to that of the state prison system or considers there are only about 3,500 offenders in reentry
facilities at any given time.
Halfway house officials complain that residents who return late from work release
assignments or who surrender after a few days of being absent are harmless, yet are often
considered escapees. They also point out that their employees are unarmed and without authority
to stop an escape, and that they depend on educating halfway house residents as the best option
to prevent them from absconding.
Those points may have some validity, but ignore the fact that many of the escapes have
occurred at "locked-down" halfway houses – those with no work-release program – and
few escapees are prosecuted once caught. For example, the prosecution rate for residents who
abscond in Essex County has been around 10% since 2009.
Sometimes the low prosecution rate reflects a lack of interest by local prosecutors in
pursuing a relatively minor infraction that can be handled through the prison system's
disciplinary process. Yet law enforcement officials often don't even know a halfway house
resident has escaped until they commit another crime – and sometimes not even then.
Rafael Miranda absconded from a halfway house in December 2009 and was on the run for four
months until he fatally shot a man in Newark. In 2010, David Goodell, imprisoned for assaulting
his ex-girlfriend, escaped from Logan Hall, a halfway house with one of the highest escape
rates, and murdered a woman who had broken off her relationship with him. Valeria Parziale
escaped from a Trenton halfway house in 2009; nine days later she used a knife to cut off a
man's ear in a liquor store. She was charged with assault but not escape, because prosecutors
were unaware she was an escapee.
More recently, Jahmel Glanton, 19, walked away from the Robinson Center in December 2013,
just three days after he arrived at the facility; he was captured more than three weeks later
on January 11, 2014 and charged with possession of crack cocaine and obstructing the
administration of law.
Halfway houses run by the nonprofit Kintock Group have accounted for almost half the escapes
in New Jersey in recent years. CEC has used that fact to deflect criticism that there is
something wrong with the company's management of its halfway houses, but the Kintock Group
pointed out that all of the prisoners sent to its facilities first go through the CEC-run
Robinson Assessment and Treatment Center for evaluation. Only those deemed low-risk by CEC are
transferred to Kintock halfway houses.
From 2009 through 2011, 16% of escapees absconded from CEC-operated facilities but another
43% had first been evaluated as low-risk by CEC before fleeing from other halfway houses.
Therefore, it appears that improper evaluation by CEC was a contributing factor in at least
some of the escapes.
Another explanation is the growth in the percentage of prisoners convicted of violent crimes
being sent to halfway houses. That figure increased from 12% in 2006 to 21% in 2012, and
coincided with a budget-savings-driven expansion in the use of halfway houses. It costs between
$125 and $150 a day to house a prisoner in a state prison, but only $60 to $75 to put the same
prisoner in a reentry facility.
Some former halfway house residents and workers have provided a different explanation for
the high number of escapes, saying reentry facilities are often violent, dangerous and
gang-infested, rampant with drugs and other contraband, and residents are not closely
monitored.
"This industry just infuriates me," stated Nancy Wolff, director of the Center for
Behavioral Health Services and Criminal Justice Research at Rutgers University. "If you want to
go there and sit in peer-run groups – or hang out and smoke and play cards and have
access to drugs – it's a great place."
According to Vanessa Falcone, 32, there is a much darker side to halfway houses. Falcone was
assigned to a cleaning crew at the Robinson Center in 2009 when an employee ordered her into a
closet and forced her to perform oral sex.
"He took his pants off and grabbed my hair and pushed me down," she said. "That started a
few weeks of basically hell." After another staff member learned what was happening, Falcone
was moved to a different facility and the employee was fired but not prosecuted.
In a similar incident, a woman who escaped from the Robinson Center told police after being
caught that she was trying to get away from a counselor, Joseph A. Chase, who had repeatedly
raped her. When police searched Chase's car they found drugs; they then arrested him on charges
of sexual assault and drug possession. CEC officials said it was an isolated incident.
Mass Escape from Logan Hall
Hurricane Sandy and a lack of preparation or training for unusual weather allowed residents
at one New Jersey halfway house to run rampant, resulting in the escape of fifteen
prisoners.
Although designated a halfway house, Logan Hall, operated by CEC, is designed and run more
like a jail. Residents are locked into small rooms, the facility is surrounded by fences topped
with razor wire, and the doors and gates are electronically-controlled. When the power failed
as a result of Hurricane Sandy on October 29, 2012, all of the doors unlocked.
The opened doors allowed dozens of male residents at Logan Hall to get into the hallways.
Once there they destroyed furniture and vending machines, tore signs with messages such as
"Stop Lying" and "Admit When You Are Wrong" off the walls, and threatened employees and female
residents.
The CEC workers were unable to organize an effective response to the mayhem. Poorly paid,
trained and equipped, none of them knew how to start the backup generator; they didn't even
have a flashlight.
One supervisor confronted a group of male residents wearing improvised face masks who were
headed toward the rear of the building where the women were housed. While the supervisor kept
the men at bay, other staff members moved the female residents to a reception area that could
be manually locked. They stayed there until the police arrived.
Thwarted in their efforts, the masked men grabbed chairs and blankets to scale the perimeter
fence and left Logan Hall through the unlocked front door. They quickly discovered that the
front gate was open, too.
Of the 15 residents who escaped, six were recaptured within three days, another six were
caught between three and six days later, two eluded authorities for about a week and only one
remained free after two weeks.
Governor Christie was strangely silent about the events at Logan Hall during Hurricane
Sandy. Assemblyman Charles Mainor, chairman of the Law and Public Safety Committee, was
troubled by the administration's failure to disclose the incident.
"I did not know. Of course, they would not want me to know," said Mainor, referring to
Christie's strong support for CEC and his close friend, CEC vice president William J.
Palatucci, who left the company in November 2012 after extensive news coverage about problems
at CEC-run halfway houses.
Fifty officers from four law enforcement agencies, including the Essex County Sheriff's
Department, Essex County Correctional Department, Newark Police Department and New Jersey
Parole Board, responded to the incident at Logan Hall. Newark Mayor Cory A. Booker said it was
"obviously a serious event." Joe Amato, president of the Essex County guards union and an
opponent of privately-operated halfway houses, took it a step further.
"The place was turned upside down," he said. "The inmates basically rioted."
Amato's take may be an exaggeration since no one was injured at Logan Hall. But it is
probably not an exaggeration to agree with one of the responding law enforcement officers who,
on the condition of anonymity, said there were moments when the situation at the facility could
have spiraled out of control.
None of the state or county-run jails and prisons in New Jersey experienced disturbances or
escapes during Hurricane Sandy.
Violence, Drugs and Gangs
Both prisoners and former employees have described the Robinson Center as dangerous –
especially at night. Residents are housed in barracks-style rooms with only one or two staff
members to oversee each 170-bed unit. Some employees are so afraid they refuse to patrol the
halls. Thus, at night, the rules of the jungle prevail – with robberies, sexual assaults
and the weak being preyed upon by the strong. Employees have said many prisoners ask to be
returned to the state prison system because they feel safer there.
"They definitely told me, 'I want to go back to prison,'" said former Robinson Center GED
teacher Assenka Okiloff. "They would tell me that all the time."
"It's not a safe environment, not safe for inmates or for staff," agreed Robert Brumbaugh,
former deputy director of security at the Robinson Center and a 25-year veteran of the
corrections system. "It was horrendous."
The purpose of the Robinson Center and other halfway houses is to provide resources and
programs to help prisoners succeed following their release. How could it be, then, that when
Mercer County conducted a surprise drug test of 75 county prisoners held at the Robinson Center
in August 2009, 55 (73%) tested positive?
The facility is "like the projects," stated Matthew Leibe, who was housed at the Robinson
Center in 2011. "I'm walking down the hallway from mess and I'm getting approached by everybody
selling everything – 'I've got batteries, T-shirts, weed, heroin, coke.'"
One explanation given by former employees for the prevalence of drugs at the halfway house
was rampant falsification of prisoner records. The records reported drug treatment and other
classes as well as drug tests, all of which never occurred. And when classes were provided,
they were given in a haphazard manner or by untrained employees who merely read the program
materials to a group of residents.
Denette Pasqualini, 40, was hired as a counselor at the Robinson Center in June 2011. She
had what she thought was relevant experience working security at Six Flags, but soon found
things were very wrong at the facility. Supervisors drank whiskey hidden in soda bottles,
counselors were having sex with residents and when she tried to intervene after one resident
stabbed another with a pen, other prisoners held her back. She also observed counselors warning
residents of upcoming drug tests, allowing them to take urine cups into the bathroom without
supervision and simply doctoring test results so they showed prisoners passing drug tests who
had not been tested.
"The staff is from the Trenton area and know the inmates from the streets," said Pasqualini.
"They say: 'I'm not going to give her a drug test. I know her. I'll let it go.'"
Cynthia Taylor, 55, another former Robinson Center counselor, falsified records and saw
others falsify them after she was hired despite having no previous counseling experience. She
was told to give lectures on drug treatment and parenting.
"We all understood it was a numbers game," she said. "[CEC] made money not on how many
people were rehabilitated. 'How many bodies can we get in here and keep here for a certain
amount of time?' That's what they were interested in."
When these kinds of problems are brought to the state's attention they are often ignored,
according to Bronislaw Szulc, formerly a senior state official in charge of investigating
halfway houses. Szulc said he submitted extensive documentation concerning drugs, violence,
escapes and poor security at the Robinson Center and other halfway houses before retiring in
2010. But state officials rarely held the operators of the facilities accountable, instead
demanding that he soften the criticism in his reports.
"I was told to stand down and ease up – not to go after things so hard," he said.
The influence of gangs explains some of the prevalence of violence and drugs at halfway
houses. "Beyond outright threats and shakedowns, even time on a facility's pay phone was found
to be controlled and sold by gang members," said Lee C. Seglem, assistant director of the State
Commission of Investigation, which reviewed the influence of gangs in New Jersey's corrections
system in 2009. The commission found that gangs were a much greater problem in halfway houses
than prisons.
Some reentry facilities have a form of work release, which might account for the presence of
drugs and other contraband. The Robinson Center is not one of them; rather, it's a locked-down
facility. Despite its locked-down status there have been at least nine escapes since 2009, and
drug use is rampant.
CEC's hiring standards may also contribute to contraband problems in its halfway houses.
Dana Vetrano, who was hired as a counselor at the Robinson Center, had done time for robbery
– and wasn't the only ex-con employed by the company.
"They were from the streets," she said of other staff members with criminal records. "They
needed a job, they came in from the street, they were hired – that was it. They had no
qualifications, nothing."
So what is Governor Christie's administration doing to reign in the anarchy and escapes at
the state's halfway houses? According to David W. Thomas, executive director of New Jersey's
parole board, his agency conducted an inquiry. But Thomas refused to provide any details of the
inquiry and, when asked for a copy of the findings, said "There is no actual document."
In July 2012, the New Jersey legislature held two days of hearings into gang activity,
violence and drug use at halfway houses. The hearings were prompted by a New York Times
exposé that revealed problems at reentry facilities, based on a ten-month investigation
by the paper. Afterwards, lawmakers vowed to introduce bills to increase oversight of halfway
houses and improve contracting procedures.
In August 2012, $45,000 in fines was levied for nine escapes from six halfway houses, two of
which were operated by CEC. That was the largest sanction imposed on privately-run halfway
houses; the only other fines amounted to $30,000 in April 2012 for six escapes (including four
at CEC facilities).
At the same time the state was imposing fines for repeated escapes, the Christie
administration was working to reduce halfway house oversight. In June 2012, Governor Christie
issued a line-item veto to curtail new disclosure requirements and, two months later,
significantly weakened a requirement for audits of halfway house contracts.
In July 2012, Christie signed a bill to expand the state's drug court program by making it
mandatory for non-violent offenders, which was expected to vastly increase the number of people
entering drug treatment. As such programs are provided at halfway houses, the legislation will
likely increase the state's halfway house population, benefiting CEC and other reentry facility
contractors.
"You'll see an expansion of halfway houses, an expansion of opportunities in the state when
they know there'll be more people who are available to enter these programs," Governor Christie
said. "So I think you'll see an expansion of them beyond where they are now."
Litigation Over Halfway Houses
Lawsuits have further highlighted problems with halfway houses in New Jersey. The union that
represents Essex County guards filed suit in state Superior Court in August 2012, alleging that
the largest halfway house in the state, the l,200-bed CEC-run Delaney Hall in Newark, has been
operating for more than a decade without legal authority.
The suit, filed by the Policemen's Benevolent Association, claims that EHCA is "a sham
nonprofit corporation engaged solely in activities designed to generate income" for CEC. In
addition to the funding it receives for housing state prisoners and parolees, CEC also received
a $130 million contract in December 2011 to house Essex County prisoners at Delaney Hall. The
county, in turn, rents its jail beds to federal authorities to house federal prisoners and
immigration detainees, at a substantial profit.
"We need to get a judge's opinion on whether or not it's illegal," said union local
president Joe Amato, a named plaintiff in the lawsuit. "When you incorporate profits into
corrections, that's when corners are cut, because everyone is worried about the bottom line
instead of safety."
Further, former CEC chief financial officer David N.T. Watson filed suit against the company
in 2011. Watson claimed that CEC's founder and CEO, John J. Clancy, lied about the company's
financial condition when recruiting him; he also alleged he was improperly fired. Documents in
the lawsuit revealed that CEC was in crisis as early as 2009. The records showed the firm had
defaulted on its debts in January 2010 and contemplated bankruptcy that same year.
CEC's fiscal problems began when it expanded in states like Alabama and Texas; the company
borrowed heavily for the expansion but was reportedly unable to make its payments. To avoid a
debt crisis and have enough money to pay its employees, CEC laid off staff. More than 15 former
workers told The New York Times that the lower staffing levels resulted in reduced reentry
services for halfway house residents.
In December 2010, CEC obtained $235 million in financing with an interest rate of 15.25%,
which served as a temporary band-aid for the company's debt crisis. The following year the firm
received $71 million from state and local governments and had expenditures that exceeded $105
million. To forestall bankruptcy, CEC gave "investors without substantial experience in
corrections a role in running the company," according to the Times.
LLR Partners, a Philadelphia-based private equity firm, and other investors contributed $53
million to CEC, largely due to then-vice president William Palatucci's close relationship with
Governor Christie. The company has evidently weathered the financial storm, as it remains in
business and hasn't filed for bankruptcy protection.
Watson's lawsuit against CEC was resolved in October 2012 under undisclosed terms. See:
Watson v. CEC, U.S.D.C. (D. NJ), Case No. 2:11-cv-04855-WJM-MF.
... ... ...
Conclusion
...It is clear that too many halfway houses are run more with an eye on profit than on the
services and programs that prisoners need to ensure a successful transition back into society
– a process that should begin when offenders first enter the prison system, not just a
short time before they get out. Other than Pennsylvania's recent efforts to tie halfway house
contracts to reductions in recidivism rates, there has been little interest in ensuring that
reentry facilities meet the many challenges faced by soon-to-be-released prisoners.
Politics has also played a damaging role in the halfway house industry, as contracts are
sometimes influenced by political connections and lobbying rather than outcomes or performance
measures. Government officials appear to be more interested in reducing expenses by placing
offenders in halfway houses rather than investing in the resources necessary to ensure stable
post-release housing and employment.
Note: The author was assigned to a federally-contracted halfway house following his
release from the Bureau of Prisons in 2013. PLN writers Matt Clarke and Paresh Patel
contributed to this article.
Sources: www.dismas.com, www.tampabay.com, www.wfla.com, www.nj.com, www.northjersey.com,
The New York Times, http://lancasteronline.com, Palm Beach Post, www.citizensvoice.com,
www.corrrectionsone.com, www.prnewswire.com, www.cor.state.pa.us, www.texasprisonbidness.org,
Houston Chronicle, www1.koaa.com, http://qctimes.com, www.newsok.com, www.leoweekly.com,
Washington Post, Texas Tribune, www.seattlepi.com, http://ohsonline.com, www.wvgazette.com,
www.wptv.com, www.auditor.ky.gov, www.pageonekentucky.com, www.patch.com, Oklahoma Watch,
www.myfoxhouston.com, http://usnews.nbcnews.com, Denver Post, www.coloradoan.com,
www.statesman.com, http://standardspeaker.com
While others reach for easy solutions and simplistic slogans, Sharkey embraces
complexity and uncertainty.
Always refreshing to see a supposed scientist say "Occam, Shmoccam."
Their public spaces have not been maintained. Their schools are underfunded.
People lost connections to institutions of community life, which include school, summer
jobs programs, pools, and libraries.
The need to not mention the obvious about crime had been pushing liberals into cargo cult
thinking recently, basically that if they just try to copy nice things that people have
elsewhere in the ghetto, it'll rub off and make the people nice too. I shared AOC's gem from
last year that defunding the police leaves you with a suburb like the one she grew up in.
WaPo had some splashy, graphics-heavy section last week or so on crime in which the sole
discernable new idea seemed to be using vacant land for parks.
"But crime rates mostly seem to go up and down depending up what Important People want.
E.g., from the early 1990s onward, Important People were sick of all the murders in New York
City, so New York eventually became the least homicidal big city in America."
The financial crisis of the 70s onward had mostly subsided by the 1990s, those long term
bonds being refinanced at lower interest rates or paid off. The freed up money allowed NYC
more leeway, and at the state level the money paid for Cuomo I's jail building spree. Toss in
mass immigration of high class immigrants for extra taxing power. Check out Illinois and New
Jersey (and maybe CT KY) to see where problems might show up again. New York City finances
are usually separate from NY state and might be starting another financial crisis.
From a pure cost-benefit perspective, taking emotion and morality out of it, are blacks
shooting blacks in large number better or worse for society? Given the criminality of young
black men particularly might it be a net positive?
The Atlantic discounts Lead exposure as a cause of violent crime. It is even easier to
discount economic private as a cause as well. 9/11 and the tech crash as well as the general
financial crash had no impact on crime at all.
It is also worth noting that white crime peeked around 1977 and has slowly declined
even since. The late 80's to early 90's, the gangsta rap crime wave, was all black and was
mainly connected to disputes over the distribution of crack cocaine in black neighborhoods.
Call it distributor wars.
A private food service company "accidentally" sold dog food to feed prisoners mis-marked
as "ground beef for tacos." There was no punishment for the company or its executives.
A federal prison in Littleton, Colorado, 2011. (Vetatur Fumare, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)
A friend recently forwarded to me an article from The New York
Times which talked about a group of Maine state prisoners who have taken to raising
their own fruits and vegetables in the prison yard because there was literally no healthy or
nourishing food provided to them by prison authorities. One prisoner likened the daily meal to
"a ground up gym mat with spices." The article said:
"Of the seemingly endless tally of injustices of mass incarceration, one of the worst
humiliations gets little attention from outside: the food. This shadow issue -- the 3,000
bologna sandwiches, mystery meats slathered on white bread, soy filler masquerading as
chicken and other culinary indignities consumed during a prison sentence -- permeates life
behind bars and instills a nearly universal sense of disgust."
Prison food is high on refined carbohydrates, sodium and sugar and low on nutrients --
diets the rest of us have been told to avoid. Like everything about prisons, it
disproportionately affects people of color, and it has grown worse during the pandemic. With
most states spending $3 or less per person a day for meals, penitentiaries have become hidden
food deserts, paralleling the neighborhoods from which many inmates have come."
I can tell you definitively that this is true. My first full day in prison after blowing the
whistle on the CIA's torture program was a Friday "fish day." One of the members of the
"Italian contingent" warned me on my way to the cafeteria. "Don't eat the fish. We call it
sewer trout. We're not even sure if it's fish." When I got to the cafeteria and got in line, I
saw cases stacked up behind the servers. They were in plain view and were clearly marked,
"Alaskan Cod–Product of China–Not for Human Consumption–Feed Use Only." I
threw lunch away.
Mid-Week 'Tacos'
Pet food aisle in New York, 2007. (Jeffrey O. Gustafson, CC-BY-SA-2.0, Wikimedia
Commons)
Wednesdays in all federal prisons are "Mexican food days" and dinner is always what
authorities call "tacos." They're unlike any tacos I've ever seen. I realized why when I read
an article in
Prison Legal News
magazine , a publication of the Human Rights Defense Center. It said that, "a private food
service company, John Soules Foods Inc., 'accidentally' sold dog food to prisons to be fed to
prisoners mismarked as 'ground beef' for tacos." There was no punishment for the company or its
executives, other than a $392,000 fine, the cost of the investigation, paid to the U.S.
Treasury.
Prisoners got nothing. Not even an apology. And the shame of the story is that nobody could
even tell that it was dog food. It tasted the same as everything else prisoners are served.
In the two years I was in prison, for example, I never saw the crown of a stalk of broccoli.
Prisoners only get stems and only fruits and vegetables that are so damaged and ugly that they
can't possibly be sold in a grocery store. "Special meals," like those on Thanksgiving and
Christmas, called for a "selection of holiday pies," according to the prisoner handbook. Well,
the selection of holiday pies was a chocolate "Cliff Bar" that had expired a year earlier.
"Nobody could even tell that it was dog food. It tasted the same as everything else
prisoners are served."
Once we got bagels. But they were all dyed green from the previous year's St. Patrick's Day,
they hadn't sold, and they had been frozen for a year.
Things got so bad that one Iraqi prisoner and I once scoured the prison yard for dandelions,
with which we made a salad with stolen olive oil from the cafeteria and salt and pepper. It was
the only salad I had in two years. And I had to eat it secretly, lest I be sent to
solitary.
The Warden in Maine
With that said, there's a relatively easy fix to all this. The New York Times article
that I cited above introduces us to the warden of a Maine state prison, Randall Liberty.
Liberty is the son of a former prisoner who grew up on public assistance and who became a
master certified gardener and beekeeper.
When he became a warden, the article says, he was "horrified" to learn that leftover food
was being thrown away every day. He introduced a class to teach prisoners how to compost, and
he immediately instituted a mandatory composting policy. This resulted in a fertile
two-and-a-half acre garden that now produces much of the prison's food, including 77,000 pounds
of apples annually.
Many are consumed in-house, and all the excess is sent to neighboring prisons. The program
saves millions of dollars a year and it keep prisoners healthy, busy, and learning how to farm.
There's literally no downside. So why isn't every prison doing this?
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
J Joon , March 10, 2021 at 15:32
No one is surprised, are they? This is how America, as controlled by gangster-capitalist
neoliberal fascist capitalists, is operated. They will sacrifice all of you, and then
remunerate and reward themselves massively. Ever notice? No matter how incompetently,
criminally, stupidly, that neoliberal fascists run things, no matter if they bankrupt and
ruin companies and institutions, they will pay themselves more than you and everyone you know
will ever have. They never suffer, and never pay for anything in any way. I think there is a
slow genocide underway. All they have to do is call themselves "job creators". They certainly
have created a bunch of "Jobs".
Ron Linker , March 10, 2021 at 12:28
the cheapest foods, cabbage, carrots and beans are served every day sometimes for all 3
meals. When the beans tray gets low they just add water. cream of wheat was called "grits".
Another item was "Texas Hash" but there was never any hash. I think it was there way of
renaming cabbage.
Vera Gottlieb , March 10, 2021 at 11:02
Is there no end to the shamelessness of American businesses??? Is there ever an end to all
the cheating? People with no integrity, no moral compass? But honestly what is to be expected
of a mentality that believes "cheating is OK, just don't get caught".
John Rowland , March 10, 2021 at 09:50
In the 1950's in my Canadian City, our local prison was producing all of its own food, and
actually selling into the local market at a profit. The local food growers association got
into the act, and lobbied the local (Provincial) government to have the prison farm shut
down, so they did not have to compete.
More recently, the Harper Government (Federal) shut down all the prison farms in
Canada.
The irony is that now, there are no prison farms, and most of our fresh food is imported
from Mexico or California. (A small amount does come in from another province – BC)
dfnslblty , March 10, 2021 at 09:38
A good look at the inhuman result of vulture capitalism.
None should be treated in this manner.
$$$ and avarice motivate privatization by govt – prosecute legislators who persecute
We, The People.
Do you really think that saving money, or to correct criminals are motivations for the
legal system? Don't be naive. The legal system is the enforcer for the status quo:go to
college, be indoctrinated, get married, buy a house and a new car, put yourself in debt, work
for rich bossman making him richer, be obedient in every way, or you lose it all and end up
in prison. The alternative is to join the military and be a murderer for hire, or to work
minimum wage slave labor. We are a free country, and you must agree or go to prison. Prison
is in no way corrective, is not a deterrent for crime, and is mostly filled with drug-related
offenders. Many pleaded guilty to prevent worse sentences, and of them, many were innocent.
You were a common criminal, and so was I. Where I was the food was somewhat better, but being
that I have done research on the legal system, and have the courage to tell the guards what I
know, and to admonish them and ask them how they can live with themselves, I was diagnosed
with a mental illness, and forced to take chemicals which removed my appetite and willingness
to exercise. After all, us criminals must be controlled. My crime was to write a book
EXPOSING THE MONEY MACHINE which exposed who the powers really are, and which promoted
socialism, debunked the medical and psychiatric fields, and exposed some repugnant policies
of the US rulers.
Patricia Tursi, Ph.D. , March 10, 2021 at 09:15
People in prison may be guilty of a crime or not. Either way, they are humans who deserve
a healthy meal. All private prisons should be banned. Prison industries should not be free of
taxes, or the pay from the industries totally confiscated for prison charges. "The Maine
State Prison Showroom, still located on Route 1 in Thomaston, Maine (207-354-9237), is the
largest retailer of over 600 crafted products, but there are also over 60 private vendors
approved to resell prison-made goods throughout the State of Maine." This is a good shelter
for some industries who have a captive work force. It is wrong how it is handled, but working
and learning a trade is a positive. It's all in how it is handled.
Vera Gottlieb , March 10, 2021 at 11:03
The American mentality is: make a buck, not matter how.
Dwight , March 10, 2021 at 15:43
I agree. Growing healthy food would also be a positive. Artisanal organic sauerkraut, for
example, looking at an item in my frig I'm blessed to be able to buy. Let prisoners grow and
sell healthy foods to stores in their communities, and eat the same food. Feed their bodies
and souls. The punishment is incarceration, it shouldn't be malnutrition and other physical
torments.
Actually at lest some private prisons are run better and feed prisoners better than federal
prisons. So as for "Privatization of prisons has made things worse" it depends. But some private
institution engaged in "re-entry" programs are a real hell. With abusive guards and pretty
draconian control of each move of inmates.
Privatization of prisons has made things worse. Of federal prisoners, 19.1 percent are in
private prisons, as are 6.8 percent of those in state prisons. These privately run hellholes
turn a profit by jacking up fees for inmates from everything from phone calls to mail to
video-conferencing with a lawyer. They also make money by skimping on decent food and proper
medicines and have lots of other ingenious ways to squeeze dollars out of their captives.
Politically, private prisons are a reactionary force, promoting, naturally, tougher crime laws
and longer sentences. Because that's how they make money – for them, the more prisoners,
the better. Private prisons contributed to the 408 percent increase in the U.S. prison
population from 1978 to 2014.
... "In 2017, there were 219,000 women in U.S. prisons and jails, most of them poor and of
color," Kaba writes, observing that the incarceration rate for black women is double that for
white women. She argues that abuse survivors are systematically punished "for trying to protect
themselves and their children," that it is "hurt people who hurt other people," and that prison
simply should not figure in the equation.
This book recounts terrible stories of women punished for defending themselves, but one,
from Florida, presents a very bitter irony: Marissa Alexander fired a warning shot into the air
to force her violent husband to back off. For this, she faced 60 years in prison. She would
have seemed a likely candidate for Florida's infamous "stand your ground law" – right?
But the judge said no, because she had not demonstrated fear. She was found guilty and
sentenced to 20 years in prison. (After three years in prison and two under house arrest, she
was released, thanks to a national campaign to free her and to some very effective
lawyers.)
Eve Ottenberg is a novelist and journalist. Her latest book is Birdbrain . She
can be reached at herwebsite.
Back in 2015, Bill Livolsi Jr. had no trouble finding
work even though he'd been convicted of wire fraud and was upfront with potential employers about his crime.
But that was before the COVID-19 pandemic.
"I am applying to jobs left, right and sideways, " says
Livolsi, who has been looking for work since April when he was released from federal prison after serving a 13-month sentence for
the crime. "It is extremely difficult ... They're picking the cream of the crop when there are opportunities.''
Almost 1 in 3 adults in the United States has a criminal record,
and finding a job when you have a past arrest or
conviction has never been easy. But it's become even more difficult in the midst of the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19
health crisis that has left millions of Americans unemployed and significantly increased the competition for jobs, public policy
experts say.
"Because of COVID-19 ... everybody is having a harder
time, and that would be exacerbated for people who are being released from prison,'' says Kristen Broady, policy director for the
Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, which focuses on economic policy.
Low-wage positions, a lifeline for those with limited
prospects, are in high demand and short supply. Restaurants and other industries that offer lower-paying jobs have struggled amid
shutdowns aimed at slowing the spread of the virus. And with a national unemployment rate of 6.7%, employers who have their pick
of applicants may be less inclined to hire someone with a record, Broady and others say.
The hiring dip threatens to slow the progress led by
a growing number of states and municipalities to restore the rights of ex-offenders. They are passing laws that wipe criminal
records clean, allow some who've committed felonies to vote, and bar employers from asking about criminal histories early in the
hiring process.
Most urgently, the hiring slowdown may make it harder
for the 620,000 men and women released from prison each year to get a fresh start and contribute to their communities, advocates
and ex-offenders say.
"Meaningful employment is crucial,'' says Livolsi, 61,
who lives in Owasso, Oklahoma. "It's crucial to rebuild your self-esteem, to rebuild your ties with your family, and just to be
able to put food on the table.''
COVID-19 makes hiring harder
The jobless rate for those who've been incarcerated has
typically been much higher than the general population.
A
Brookings report
published in March 2018 found that 45% of those released from prison did not have any reported pay in the
first calendar year after they returned home.
The current jobless rate for those who've
been incarcerated is unclear, but placement services that work with ex-offenders believe it's risen during a pandemic that has
caused unemployment to soar across the board.
The Center for Employment Opportunities, which provides
transitional employment, coaching and job placement for those released from prison, made 368 placements in April 2019. But
in April 2020, near the start of the COVID-19 health crisis, only 140 of its applicants were able to find work.
Similarly, for the period between July 1 and Dec. 31,
2019, the center found jobs for 1,793 of its applicants, but placements dropped by half, to 900, during that same period last
year.
"We already know that in hiring, people with
convictions face tremendous hurdles and I think COVID has just exacerbated those situations,'' says Chris Watler, the center's
chief external affairs officer.
70 Million Jobs, an employment agency for those with
criminal records, says it was particularly successful in finding former offenders jobs in shipping, warehouses and food
processing plants. But as the pandemic took hold, "business dropped almost overnight, by 90%,'' says its founder Richard Bronson.
"We were doing very well and then we were virtually
out of business," says Bronson, a former financial services executive who started the agency after he served time in prison.
Will they commit more crimes?
Job seekers who are ex-offenders have to overcome
stigma and suspicions that they can't be trusted and may be prone to commit another crime, Bronson says. But historically low
unemployment rates before the pandemic, which left tens of thousands of jobs unfilled, made employers more receptive to
applicants who'd been incarcerated.
The need for workers also boosted efforts by
organizations like the Society for Human Resource Management to get employers to commit to giving qualified applicants with a
criminal record an equal chance to be hired.
But barriers to employment have remained steep. A
majority of employers still check to see if job applicants have past convictions, and a host of laws prohibit people convicted of
a felony from getting licenses necessary to work in various higher-paying fields such as health care or cosmetology.
Those obstacles have ramifications for not only the
individuals who struggle to find work but the economy as a whole, social justice experts say.
"There is a public safety angle if people can't find
jobs when released from prison,'' says Ames Grawert, senior counsel for the Justice Program at New York University Law School's
Brennan Center for Justice. "It's more likely they'll return to crime which no one wants. And there's research that homelessness
is more likely and deep poverty... Even those who do find jobs earn shockingly less than their peers."
The economy suffers
The broader labor market suffers as well. When those
with felony convictions or who've been incarcerated struggle to find jobs, the economy loses out on roughly 1.7 to 1.9 million
workers, and between $78 billion and $87 billion in gross domestic product, according to a paper by the Center for Economic and
Policy Research), released in June 2016, that examined 2014 data.
Having a job can help reduce the chance ex-offenders
will commit new crimes, though the quality of the position and the ability to earn higher wages is key to success as well,
research shows.
Getting Out And Staying Out, a New York area reentry
program, says that recidivism rates for its participants who've gone to school, undergone training, received mentorship, or
gotten jobs in the previous 90 days are 15% or lower, compared with 67% for young men in a similar age group nationwide. The
recidivism rates for its participants dropped as low as 10% early on in the pandemic, says Sonya Shields, Getting Out And Staying
Out's chief operating officer.
Eager to use new skills in jobs
Chauncey Floyd, who returned home last year after
serving nearly 16 years in prison, says that like him, many former offenders just want to move on from their pasts and provide
for themselves and their families.
Floyd says he was eager to find a job using
the computer programming skills he learned while incarcerated. But conversations with potential employers usually end when he
tells them he has a record.
"I was ... trying to find a career, not necessarily
trying to grab a job just to have one,'' says Floyd, 46, who is living with family members in South Carolina.
He's now looking for more manual positions and hopes to
eventually start his own business. "You just want to basically have a chance,'' Floyd says. "Me, going to prison, I don't want to
pay for it for the rest of my life Some people actually just want to do better.''
Don't ask about criminal records in job interviews
While hiring has slowed, larger efforts to give
ex-offenders more opportunities continue, advocates and public policy experts say.
Twenty-six states and Washington, D.C., have passed
legislation that bar employers in the public or private sectors from asking early in the hiring process if an applicant has a
criminal record, says Michael Hartman of the National Conference of State Legislature's Civil & Criminal Justice Program.
And several states, including Pennsylvania, California,
North Carolina, and Utah, have passed or are considering "clean slate'' laws that automatically clear the records of some
offenders after a certain amount of time, according to a compilation of research on reentry hurdles and initiatives by the Center
for American Progress, National Employment Law Project and Community Legal Services of Philadelphia.
On the federal level, U.S. Sens. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and
Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, introduced the "Clean Slate Act'' in December which would automatically seal the federal records of
those arrested for simple drug possession. Those convicted of such offenses would have their records sealed after they finish
their sentence.
And the legislation would also create a framework for ex-offenders to request the sealing of records for
other nonviolent crimes.
"That was a real breakthrough,'' Grawert said of the
bipartisan bill, which if passed will make it easier for people who've been arrested or convicted to find work without answering
questions about their past.
Promises after George Floyd death
Promises by many businesses to address systemic racism
in the wake of the protests that followed the killings of George Floyd and other African Americans could also open
up opportunities for the formerly incarcerated, who are disproportionately Black and Latino, advocates say.
"I'm hopeful because I see in the job seekers that I
work with a real passion to work, to contribute, to grow,'' says Watler. "And increasingly, I'm seeing employers ... waking up to
the fact that their practices have to evolve.''
"... This is the lens through which I see so-called cancel culture: there is a real problem, for ordinary people, of having your life severely damaged by a trivial offense, or by no offense at all. And of course, predictably, elite whiners want to hijack this real concern in order to maintain their impunity. ..."
"... But the elites are a parasitical epiphenomenon: they are attempting to take advantage of a pre-existing problem that hurts other people far more than it hurts them. And our justifiable contempt for the elites should not blind us to the existence of a real social problem that affects non-elites. ..."
"... So, shed no tears for Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens. They do not need protecting -- they are already coddled far too much. When the OP focuses on their plights as examples of "cancel culture," then cancel culture, so-described, looks like a well-deserved comeuppance, a refreshing chink in the armor of elite impunity. ..."
"... So, elite suffering is a side-show here (as it so often is). Focus on the lives of the non-elite. Their suffering should control our responses to the situation. Focus on the contingent academics fired from their jobs for speaking their minds. On the worker falsely accused of a white-power sign. ..."
Whenever there is a real social problem that affects many people, then rich, entitled
elites will attempt to commandeer it in order to consolidate their privilege.
If the sentencing guidelines are draconian and cruel, sending poor people to prison for
their lives, then white-collar criminals will complain that their 6-month sentence is a gross
injustice that proves they should be let out on bail.
If housing prices are so high that ordinary workers cannot afford the rent, then
millionaires will complain that they can no longer afford to keep a third home.
It's a predictable phenomenon. Elites will pretend that their minor inconveniences are
epic agonies, in order to be spared even minor inconveniences. We know this.
But we also know that the mere fact of elite whinging is no evidence that there is not a
real problem for non-elites.
In fact, the sentencing guidelines are unconscionably harsh: a man in Louisiana has
been sent to jail for life, for stealing a pair of secateurs, and the Louisiana supreme court
has declined to intervene.
In fact, housing is too expensive, and ordinary people are suffering on a massive
scale from artificial scarcity designed to entrench real-estate wealth. The rent is
too damned high.
This is the lens through which I see so-called cancel culture: there is a real problem,
for ordinary people, of having your life severely damaged by a trivial offense, or by no
offense at all. And of course, predictably, elite whiners want to hijack this real concern in
order to maintain their impunity.
But the elites are a parasitical epiphenomenon: they are attempting to take advantage of a
pre-existing problem that hurts other people far more than it hurts them. And our justifiable
contempt for the elites should not blind us to the existence of a real social problem that
affects non-elites.
The pre-existing problems are those that Natalie Wynn enumerates: assumptions of guilt,
essentializing moves from a single bad act to a wicked character, guilt by association,
impossibility of forgiveness, and so on. These patterns pre-exist the internet, and are
probably to be found in even small-scale societies. They are pathologies that are closely
related to healthy and functional mechanisms of social cohesion, as tumor-growth is related
to tissue-growth.
So, shed no tears for Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens. They do not need protecting -- they
are already coddled far too much. When the OP focuses on their plights as examples of "cancel
culture," then cancel culture, so-described, looks like a well-deserved comeuppance, a
refreshing chink in the armor of elite impunity.
Fine: I agree with all of that. I also agree that I would love to see white-collar
criminals go to jail for 20-50 years, and I'd love to see millionaires unable to afford a
third house.
But it would be crazy to move from that stance to saying, "and I'd love to see petty
thieves sent to jail for life, and I'd love to see minimum wage workers evicted from their
homes because they cannot make the rent."
So, elite suffering is a side-show here (as it so often is). Focus on the lives of the
non-elite. Their suffering should control our responses to the situation. Focus on the
contingent academics fired from their jobs for speaking their minds. On the worker falsely
accused of a white-power sign.
And what should be done after we focus on these things? Not what the right-wing zealots
say, under the false flag of "free speech": not bringing back a regime in which the powerful
can use slurs to subjugate the powerless.
No: if someone repeatedly uses the n-word in order to inflict pain and humiliation on
others, then they should suffer real consequences. I totally agree with that. If someone
repeatedly addresses a co-worker with the pronouns that offend them, and does so knowing that
it will offend them, then they should suffer real consequences.
But I reject zero-tolerance regimes. A black school-guard asking students not to use the
n-word should not be punished at all for mentioning the n-word. A well-meaning and
supportive co-worker who mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun on one occasion should not be
punished at all for that faux pas.
And along with zero-tolerance regimes, we should also get rid of the parade of abuses that
Natalie Wynn lists: assumptions of guilt without evidence, guilt by association, refusal of
forgiveness, and so on.
That's a practical agenda that allows for us to make fun of elite opinion makers as much
as we like, allows us to hurl twitter tomatoes at J.K Rowling all day long, and in no way
interferes with any notion of free speech worth defending.
Posted by: Nemesiscalling | May 30 2020 0:46 utc | 133 Whites who run into trouble with the
law usually occur more often in rural areas where whites live in poverty.
Having been in Federal prison, I can tell you that there are five classes of Federal
prisoners:
1) Urban blacks.
2) Urban Latinos.
3) White Urban Thugs.
4) White Rural Rednecks.
5) White Middle- and Upper-Class Professionals.
And a smattering of Asians, Native Americans, and foreigners, and perhaps some other
statistically insignificant sorts.
Class 5 are a very small minority. By far 95% of the prisoners in Federal custody are in
the first four classes. Their common characteristics are poor, badly educated, stupid, and
malicious. Probably 75-85% are in for drugs - either using or selling. 75% of bank robber are
robbing banks to either buy drugs or get money to buy drugs to sell them. I was an exception
- I was robbing banks to get money to buy weapons and other resources to bury the people who
run this country. If it wasn't for the "War on Drugs", most of these guys would be stealing
hubcaps and robbing liquor stores. They aren't smart enough to do anything else.
That's it. That's American crime on the Federal level. On the state level, you can add in
your rapists, your burglars, your muggers, your armed robbers who stick up liquor stores,
etc. All of whom, I guarantee you, are in the same classes and do crime for the same reasons
(although maybe more rapists are middle-class since sex crosses demographic lines, I don't
know.)
"Rural areas are often much less densely populated and, as a result, I posit that
instances of police brutality go often unrecorded."
No one wants to offend the local sheriff in small towns. Rural redneck sheriffs in this
country are a standing joke in the movies because they're real.
"I posit that blacks being in densely populated urban areas have a much greater chance of
having their interaction recorded by bystanders than whites in rural areas who are having
trouble with the police."
Keep in mind that ghetto blacks *do* have serious behavioral problems, both in terms of
tendency to commit crimes and tendency to be unable to interact with white authority figures
or any authority figures for that matter. This is the result of generations of racism. On an
individual level, ghetto blacks can be hostile, impatient, massively ignorant of what
constitutes "acceptable behavior", and a variety of other personality issues. Again, this is
the result of generations of racism.
I have interacted with ghetto blacks on a daily basis for at least the last thirty years.
I have lived in areas and buildings where a significant proportion of the residents were
black, and I was in prison for nine years with them. Trust me when I say that many, if not
most (and certainly not all), of these people have serious social interaction problems as a
result of the same characteristics as the prisoners I described above. I've gotten along with
some, but I expend effort to avoid most, because my daily observations have proven to me that
many (again, not necessarily most - I am not a statistician - or all) have extremely bad
outcomes in interactions with each other, let alone white people.
That, of course, does not justify using excessive police force against someone who merely
bad-mouths them. Cops are supposed to be "professionals" (not that they ever have been in
history in any country that I'm aware of - even including Japan whose prisons I have read are
extremely bad). But the US population has been conditioned from school years to "trust
Officer Friendly" - along with stupid cop shows like "Adam-12" and others which either show
cops violating people's rights with impunity - to condition people to accept that as "normal"
because "they're only criminals" - or show cops as "nice guys". Then there's the old "a few
bad apples" schtick - which was disproven in New York back in the Seventies when it was
proven that *every* cop in New York was on the take, plus the vast string of thuggish
behavior recorded over the past thirty years. And again, the over-militarization of police
forces everywhere (even some small town I read about got an armored military vehicle from the
Feds.)
I occasionally read articles in Police Magazine - one of the main publications for cops.
They *always* take the side of the cops in these matters. There is a "cop mentality" which is
an "us vs them" mentality - and "we is us", to paraphrase the comic strips.
I'm always careful to read reports of police misuse of force carefully, because as having
some knowledge of police procedures, some knowledge of combat firearms use, and the like, and
what is reasonable use of force in terms of self-defense whether one is a cop or not, a lot
of times people don't get the view of the cop who views himself as under threat or to what
degree the cop might actually have been under threat. They assume, for example, that if a cop
shoots a guy with a knife who is thirty feet away it's a clear case of over-reaction (it's
not, a knife-wielder is a threat at least out to 21 feet, as has been proven in tests by cops
and martial artists.)
But that didn't apply in the Rodney King case, and from what I'm seeing in the Floyd case,
it doesn't apply here. Hopefully the facts will come out in court and the cop will go to
jail. Except he'll probably be put in isolation, so no one can shank him. Sucks for him to be
isolated, but he deserves worse.
Of course, the problem then is that the remaining cops will take it out on blacks on the
street even more than they do now.
Because it's the *system*, not just one cop. And the *system* is not just so-called "law
enforcement" or even the economic "system" (which is what cops *really* "enforce"). It's the
whole society-state system (which is also what cops *really* enforce). And in the end, as
I've said before, that deconstructs down to the "human system." Which, unfortunately, is no
"system" at all - just a mass of emotional brain biochemistry distorted by delusions and
fear.
Posted by: Nemesiscalling | May 30 2020 1:05 utc | 134 I witness poverty daily
As do I - especially since I am poor. Not as poor as some people in my building - I do get
some retirement income - but poor nonetheless.
"Part of me finds their situation detestable and self-caused."
Some of it is. But as I said above, that was caused from generations of racism. There's a
limit to "free will", if you're hammered from infancy.
"But dealing with urban blacks is no cakewalk and probably the hardest beat in policing
bar none."
True, as I indicated above.
"Anyone been to Baltimore lately or south-side Chicago. Didn't think so."
I've been to similar places in San Francisco - or rather, I avoid those places, like
Hunter's Point. But I live in the Tenderloin, often considered the worst neighborhood - but
the most residents here are Vietnamese since the Vietnam war ended, not blacks or Latinos -
but the percentage is growing.
"Bring these cops to justice, that is fine. But their faces...pure evil? I think not."
OTOH, consider the cops involved in that New York case where they sodomized a black guy
with a broomstick inside the police station. I saw a video of those guys. Those guys were
straight-out white Italian thugs. They could have been members of the Mafia.
As many people have noted in the past, the difference between a criminal and a cop is that
cops wear badges and are legally allowed to carry guns. I really don't think that most people
who become cops do so because they want to "protect and serve." Maybe some do at the
beginning, but after being in the "system" for a while they become jaded and corrupted - or
they leave. I think most people who become cops do so because they have an inferiority
complex or a fear that they can't compete in "the real world" - so they join a militarized
organization where they have authority and get to carry a gun with more or less impunity.
Everyone has probably run across a security guard with the same authoritarian attitude at
some point - it's the same mentality.
I saw a lot of different correctional officers while in Federal prison. Some made an
effort to be professional and fair in their dealings with inmates, a lot were complete
assholes who enjoyed pushing inmates around and making things worse for inmates. And some
were simply brutal thugs who were capable of killing an inmate who got in their faces - as
has happened. A lot of them were "down-sized military" - ex-military who were down-sized in
the '80's and '90's because they were too dumb to ever be promoted in the military.
A lot of cops are ex-military, too. I watch a lot of Youtube videos from preppers and
firearms people who are ex-military or ex-police, and they almost all have the same
authoritarian attitude and political views. They may have good information, but their
personal political philosophies are anathema to me.
Again, it's the "system" that produces "evil" cops. But anyone who joins an "evil" system
is either woefully uninformed - or they prefer such a system, consciously or
subconciously.
M uch has been made in recent weeks of whether or not former National Security Advisor Mike
Flynn should or should not have been prosecuted for making a false statement to the FBI in
2017.
Flynn allegedly lied to two FBI agents about what he had said in a conversation with Russian
Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak. But we know now that the FBI agents set him up,
emailing each
other in the days before they interviewed Flynn and asking whether their goal should be to
trick him into lying so that they could prosecute him or "get him fired."
The Flynn case is, in a nutshell, exactly what is wrong with our criminal justice system.
Former Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson warned us
in 1940 that cases like Flynn's would become the norm:
Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson. (Harris & Ewing, U.S. Library of Congress,
Wikimedia Commons)
"The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation that any other person
in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is
that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or
unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a
citizen's friends interviewed. The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand
jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can
cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in
which case the defense never has a chance to be heard. Or he may go on with a public trial.
If he obtains a conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as to sentence, as
to whether the prisoner should get probation or a suspended sentence, and after he is put
away, as to whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor at his best is one
of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives,
he is one of the worst."
The problem has become largely a bureaucratic one. Do you think prosecutors get promoted or
reelected by not prosecuting people? Do you think they get promoted or reelected by
not seeking the longest possible sentences for those they convict? Of course not. Just
imagine the trophy that Michael Flynn, a retired star lieutenant general and national security
adviser, would have been in a prosecutor's career.
PleaseContributeto Consortium News' 25th Anniversary Spring Fund
Drive
A 2012
study by ProPublica found that the Justice Department wins 98.2 percent of its cases,
almost all as a result of a plea deal. So, what strategies do prosecutors use to ensure a
conviction? There are two common ones: charge
stacking and venue
shopping .
Charge Stacking
Charge stacking is just what it sounds like. Let's say a defendant appears to have committed
a crime; let's say mortgage fraud. The prosecutor doesn't charge him with just mortgage fraud.
He'll add a couple of conspiracy charges and maybe a charge each of wire fraud and mail fraud.
The defendant is now facing 50 years in prison, rather than five. So, what does the magnanimous
prosecutor do? He offers to drop all the other charges if the defendant pleads guilty to the
original charge of mortgage fraud. It's no wonder there are so many innocent people in prison.
Most people wouldn't risk 50 years in prison if they can accept a plea, get a sentence of two
years, and make the whole thing go away.
Venue Shopping
Jeffrey Sterling in 2016. (Eleivy, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Venue shopping is another nice trick. Prosecutors will seek to charge a defendant in the
federal district where he or she is most likely to be convicted. CIA whistleblower Jeffrey
Sterling is a great example of venue shopping. Jeffrey blew the whistle on racial
discrimination at the CIA, as well as an illegal program targeting the Iranian nuclear program.
He was accused of passing classified information to then- New York Times reporter
James Risen, who then used the information in a book. Risen lived in Maryland and worked in
Washington, D.C., at the time. Sterling lived and worked in St. Louis. But he was prosecuted in
the Eastern District of Virginia, known as the "espionage court" because no national security
defendant has ever won a case there.
Prosecutors knew that Sterling couldn't win there, so they had a secretary buy Risen's book
at a Barnes & Noble in Arlington, Virginia. Bingo. They had a "crime" committed in the
Eastern District. (The feds argued that because Risen's book contained classified information,
its very existence was a crime. The secretary's purchase of the book, by this logic, caught
Sterling in the act of passing the information to the secretary through the book in Virginia
and committing espionage, the charge against him.)
Sterling insisted on his innocence and he decided to go to trial. He was convicted of nine
felonies, including seven counts of espionage. He is finally out of prison and still maintains
his innocence. But the prosecutors got their scalp.
The system is broken and there's no easy fix. Ours is an adversarial legal system. The
French and others have a magistrate system where the courts investigate crimes and work with
the defendant's attorneys to get the truth. If the person is guilty, the two sides work
together to come up with the fairest and most just solution. But in an adversarial system, one
side wins and one side loses. That's why Robert Jackson's words are so important. Remember the
power and authority of the prosecutor. And until we see real, systemic changes in our justice
system, we can only keep our fingers crossed.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
"... "[Plea bargaining] is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system." ..."
"... Federal prosecutors are equipped with a considerable range of legal weapons that can be used to compel confessions and discourage a jury trial, including charge-stacking (charging multiple criminal counts derived from a single act), mandatory-minimum sentences which eliminate discretion on the part of a sentencing judge, pretrial confinement, inordinately high bail, threats against friends and family, and the reality that any sentence handed down after trial will be substantially greater than one that could be reached via a plea bargain. ..."
"... The upside of such a process is a streamlined criminal justice system which places a premium on convictions and incarceration without the cost of a trial. The downside, however, is an unacceptably high rate of false confessions obtained by the plea deal process -- the National Registry of Exonerations estimates that as many as 20 percent of all plea deal-related confessions are false . ..."
"... The Obama national security team abused its power by unmasking Flynn's identity, then leaked Flynn's identity to the press, using this press reporting to justify the continuance of a baseless counterintelligence investigation in order to set a perjury trap intended to place Flynn in legal jeopardy. This is not how American justice is supposed to be dispensed, and the fact that Flynn had to undergo this ordeal should send a shiver down every American's spine, because if left unchecked, there but for the grace of God go us all. ..."
The Department of Justice's case against retired Army
Lieutenant General and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has exposed an ugly
reality involving the abuse of power at the highest levels of the Executive Office all the way
down the justice system this country ostensibly holds so dear.
Plea bargains are an unfortunate reality of an American system of justice which finds merit
in coercing people to admit guilt for crimes they didn't commit in order to avoid the expense
of a trial and to prevent friends and family from potential legal liability. If the purpose
behind such procedural abuse of power is to fight actual crime, the American people have grown
accustomed to turning a blind eye. But if the purpose is to exact political revenge on someone
who has incurred the disfavor of those in power, then the plea bargain system is a direct
assault on the Constitution that should insult every American, regardless where they stand on
the respective merits of the case. General Flynn's case falls firmly in the latter
category.
But in a surprising turn of events, the Department of Justice has dropped
its case against Flynn on the eve of his being sentenced in a Federal Court. In their
dismissal of the case, the Justice department concluded that the FBI's interview with Flynn was
"conducted without any legitimate investigative basis" and that the questioning was "untethered
to, and unjustified by, the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn."
Flynn's many critics have cried foul, claiming the dismissal is nothing short of a
perversion
of justice carried out at the behest of President Trump by an overly partisan Attorney
General, William Barr. Flynn's supporters have praised this outcome as a
clear case of exoneration in the face of corrupt FBI agents who abused the extraordinary
powers they wield to engage in Constitutionally impermissible conduct designed to frame the
former General.
In 2018, the Department of Justice initiated approximately
80,000 federal prosecutions . Two percent of these cases went to trial, with an 83 percent
conviction rate. Of the remaining 98 percent of the cases, some 90 percent ended with the
defendant pleading guilty; the remaining 8 percent were dismissed. The plea process is so
prevalent and pervasive in the U.S. Court system that in the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in
Missouri v. Frye , Justice Steven Kennedy, writing for the majority, quoted
a prominent law review article which concluded that "[Plea bargaining] is not some adjunct to
the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system."
Federal prosecutors are equipped with
a considerable range of legal weapons that can be used to compel confessions and discourage
a jury trial, including charge-stacking (charging multiple criminal counts derived from a
single act), mandatory-minimum sentences which eliminate discretion on the part of a sentencing
judge, pretrial confinement, inordinately high bail, threats against friends and family, and
the reality that any sentence handed down after trial will be substantially greater than one
that could be reached via a plea bargain.
The reason for such a high rate of occurrence rests in the coercive reality attached to the
tools used by the prosecutor to leverage a plea in the first place. For someone who is guilty
of a crime, a plea deal that reduces a potential 20-year sentence to five is very attractive.
For an innocent person, however, the prospect of not being able to afford competent legal
representation (an all-too reality, especially in one is subjected to pre-trial confinement and
as such unable to earn a living), combined with potential threats made to prosecute family and
friends, make pleading guilty to a crime not committed a viable option.
The plea bargain process also facilitates prosecutorial misconduct. By pleading guilty, a
defendant cedes control of the processes of justice to the prosecution; issues related to
discovery -- the requirement on the part of the prosecution to turn over all evidence relating
to the charged conduct, even if exculpatory in nature -- are often brushed aside, since guilt
is admitted and no challenge to the charges will be mounted. Prosecutors more often than not
bully their way into a coerced plea agreement, even when they know that their case would not
withstand scrutiny, because simple statistics have proven that more often than not they can get
away with it.
♦♦♦
The prosecution of General Flynn is a text-book example of clear prosecutorial abuse
designed to obtain a guilty plea. The FBI initiated a counterintelligence-scope investigation
against General Flynn not because he was accused of committing a crime, but rather because he
had incurred the wrath of the Obama administration.
When the FBI opened its Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened on July 31, 2016, its
scope was limited to allegations that a Trump campaign advisor, George Papadopoulos, was in
contact with persons working on behalf of the Russian government who were involved in the
alleged theft of documents from the Democratic National Committee server. Flynn had no
connection whatsoever to this issue. However, the FBI used the Crossfire Hurricane
investigation as cover to
open a separate investigation , known as Crossfire Razor, against Flynn based upon contacts
he had with Russia Today, a state-sponsored media outlet.
William Barr has since determined
that Crossfire Razor was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation in so far as it
lacked proper predication and Flynn's Russian connections were not materially relevant.
In January 2017 the FBI was preparing to shut down Crossfire Razor when FBI Special Agent
Peter Strzok argued that it remain open so that he could conduct an interview with Flynn about
his telephone call with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016. This is where the Flynn case loses
touch with its foundation of legality. The Flynn-Kislyak phone call was monitored by the U.S.
intelligence community. Normally the identity of any U.S. citizen so monitored is "masked," or
hidden, from any consumer of the intelligence. On certain occasions, select senior officials
may request that an identity be "unmasked" to allow for a greater understanding of the context
of the conversation. Flynn's identity was "unmasked" using this procedure, most likely on the
orders of then-FBI Director James Comey.
According to Comey , he then briefed Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who
in turn briefed President Obama.
There was bad blood between Flynn, Clapper and Obama. On November 10, 2016, when Obama met
with President-elect Trump in the White House,
he warned Trump not to hire Flynn as his National Security Advisor, ostensibly because of
his behavior while serving as the Director of DIA; Trump ignored this advice, naming Flynn as
the incoming NSA on November 18. Clapper was the man who fired Flynn at the DIA in 2014.
On January 12, David Ignatius published an article in The Washington Post which
detailed Flynn's December conversation with Kislyak; Sydney Powell, Flynn's laywer, has filed
documents with the Federal Court asserting that Ignatius had received this highly classified
information in violation of the law, and furthermore that is was Clapper who
cleared Ignatius to "take the kill shot on Flynn" by publishing the details of the
Flynn-Kislyak conversation.
If the potential for collusion between the FBI Director (Comey), the Director of National
Intelligence (Clapper) and the President of the United States (Obama) to undermine Flynn wasn't
disturbing enough, the fact that Ignatius' article enabled the FBI to conduct an interview on
January 24 with Flynn that has been
described by William Barr as "a perjury trap" should seal the deal.
Flynn was subsequently fired as the NSA, charged with lying to the FBI, bankrupted in the
process of trying to defend himself, and threatened with the prosecution of his son if he opted
to take the matter to trial. Like many before him, Flynn pled guilty to a crime he never should
have been charged with in the first place. Only the diligence of Flynn's current legal team in
forcing disclosure of exculpatory information, combined with William Barr's efforts to expose
wrongdoing by the FBI and the Intelligence Community in investigating alleged collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russia, made the dismissal of Flynn's case possible.
It doesn't matter where one stands on the issue of Mike Flynn, the man. I for one am
personally disturbed by his overly partisan approach toward national security, and the liberty
he takes with facts when making an argument. I don't believe he was the right person to serve
as Trump's National Security Advisor. Apparently neither did President Obama and his national
security team. But we don't have a vote in this matter; the National Security Advisor is
President Trump's responsibility to select. Elections have consequences.
The Obama national security team abused its power by unmasking Flynn's identity, then leaked
Flynn's identity to the press, using this press reporting to justify the continuance of a
baseless counterintelligence investigation in order to set a perjury trap intended to place
Flynn in legal jeopardy. This is not how American justice is supposed to be dispensed, and the
fact that Flynn had to undergo this ordeal should send a shiver down every American's spine,
because if left unchecked, there but for the grace of God go us all.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several
books, including his forthcoming, Scorpion King: America's Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump
(2020).
This is a weak article. Indignation as for excesses of neoliberal social system that exists in the USA is a good thing only if
there is a plan to change the system. Eric Zuesse has none. Also for top 10% the US healthcare is very efficient; it is probably the best on the planet.
OK neoliberalism is bad. But what is the alternative? Return to the New Deal capitalism is impossible as management now
is allied with the capital owners and that destroyed fragile coalition of trade unions and apart of professional management that
existed during the new deal as a countervailing force for political power of the capital. Such coalition could exist if financial
oligarchy is suppressed and if taxes of millionaires income (especially income from stocks) were around 80%. As soon as JFK
lowered the taxed that was a writing on the wall: the New Deal is doomed. Financial oligarchy was suppressed and it did not like
it. So in 20180 they staged coup d'état and the New Deal was over.
The question is: what political coalition can take on financial oligarchy. There is no such coalition yet.
Notable quotes:
"... Americans generally are desperate to go to work even if they might be spreading the coronavirus-19. They need the pay and the insurance coverage in order to be able to buy medical care. If they don't pay for it they won't get it. So: whomever does show up for work might reasonably be especially inclined to fear likely to catch the disease from a co-worker there. This is one of the many reasons why socializing the healthcare function is vastly more efficient than leaving it to market forces . ..."
"... Furthermore, prisons are among the institutions that especially increase the spread of an epidemic such as Covid-19. And the United States has a higher percentage of its residents in prison than does any other country in the world . In fact, almost all of the Americans who are in prison are poor (since 100% of the poor cannot afford a lawyer), and the poorer a person is, the likelier that the individual is to get coronavirus-19. ..."
"... America has 655 per 100,000, or 4.5 prisoners for every 1.0 prisoner in the entire world), America has vastly more production of coronavirus-19 that's generated by its being a police-state than any other country does -- and this isn't even taking into consideration the rotten, overburdened, health-care system, and the billionaire-propagandized public contempt for the poor, that characterize America's culture, and that make those prisons, perhaps, the worst amongst industrialized nations. ..."
"... Furthermore, in America, "Approximately 95 percent of criminal cases are plea-bargained, in part because public defenders are too overwhelmed to take them to trial. 'That means the state never even has to prove you did anything. They hold all the cards.'" So, the Constitutional protections, such as trial-by-jury and all of the other on-paper protections, don't even apply, in reality, to at least 95% of criminal defendants. And, in many U.S. states, convicts -- and even ex -convicts -- aren't allowed to vote. America's billionaires also use many other ways to keep down the percentage of the poor who vote. ..."
"... In addition, prior to the coronavirus challenge, both America and UK have been reducing, instead of increasing, their social protections; and, therefore, they were the only industrialized nations where life-expectancies were declining even before the coronavirus-19 hit. The recognition and concern about this decline started in UK, but has now started to be published even in the U.S. ..."
"... In other words: coronavirus hit UK at a time when the Government was already moving away from socializing and into privatizing health care; and, as a consequence, the death-rates had already started increasing in 2015. Coronavirus kills mainly people who already have bad health; and, so, their population were maximally vulnerable to it at the time when this epidemic struck. ..."
"... Even prior to 2015, the U.S. was wasting around half of its entire public-and-private spending for health care -- it was the most inefficient healthcare system on the planet -- and therefore had significantly lower life-expectancies than all other industrialized countries did. But, now, those remarkably low life-spans are actually getting even lower. ..."
"... This is the reason why America is designed so as to fail the coronavirus-19 challenge. The power of big-money (concentrated wealth) is destroying this country. It controls both Parties and their respective media, so the public don't know (and certainly cannot understand) the types of realities that are being reported (and linked-to) here. ..."
"... The fact [the existence of ] corporate prisons exist is pretty much an open declaration that we're a kleptocracy, run by the uniparty. ..."
"... We give an EQUAL vote to children, imbeciles, hostiles, and those who don't even speak the language ..."
"... Democracy is not about efficiency but to keep a check on those in power. It preventing the concentration of powers. It all about checks and balances to preserve the citizens freedoms. ..."
Virtually all other industrialized countries have social-welfare systems in place, such as
health-insurance covering 100% of the population; and, consequently, the residents there don't
lose their health insurance if they lose their job -- they therefore aren't desperate to show
up for work even when they are sick or can spread an epidemic.
Americans generally are desperate to go to work even if they might be spreading the
coronavirus-19. They need the pay and the insurance coverage in order to be able to buy medical
care. If they don't pay for it they won't get it. So: whomever does show up for work might
reasonably be especially inclined to fear likely to catch the disease from a co-worker there.
This is one of the many reasons why socializing
the healthcare function is vastly more efficient than leaving it to market forces .
On April 23rd, Reuters
reported that, "U.S. workers who refuse to return to their jobs because they are worried
about catching the coronavirus should not count on getting unemployment benefits, state
officials and labor law experts say."
In such states, the unemployment-benefits system is being used as a cudgel so as to force
employees back to work, and therefore to increase the percentage of the population who will
become infected by the coronavirus-19.
Furthermore, prisons are among the institutions that especially increase the spread of an
epidemic such as Covid-19. And the United States has a higher percentage of its residents in
prison than does any other country in the world . In fact, almost all of the Americans who
are in prison are poor (since 100% of the poor cannot afford a lawyer), and the poorer a person
is, the likelier that the individual is to get coronavirus-19.
This is yet another reason why prisons are a prime place for the spread of the disease. And
on April 26th, the New York Times headlined "As Coronavirus Strikes Prisons, Hundreds of Thousands Are
Released: The virus has spread rapidly in overcrowded prisons across the world, leading
governments to release inmates en masse." Since America has more of its population in prison
than any other country does (lots more: whereas
"The world prison population rate, based on United Nations estimates of national population
levels, is 145 per 100,000" , America has 655 per 100,000, or 4.5 prisoners for every 1.0
prisoner in the entire world), America has vastly more production of coronavirus-19 that's
generated by its being a police-state than any other country does -- and this isn't even taking
into consideration the rotten, overburdened, health-care system, and the
billionaire-propagandized public contempt for the poor, that characterize America's culture,
and that make those prisons, perhaps, the worst amongst industrialized nations.
Taken all together (and to list the other details would fill a book), America's systematized
intense discrimination against the poor constitutes virtually an invitation to this country's
having exceptional vulnerability to any epidemic. The fact that America now has 33.3% of
the world's coronavirus-19 cases , though only 4.2% of the world's population, is actually
systemic, and not merely particular to this moment in this country, and in the entire world.
Donald Trump, and the current U.S. Congress, are part of a system of oppression, not really
exceptions to it (such as the billionaires' media pretend -- with Democratic billionaires
blaming "the Republicans," and Republican billionaires blaming "the Democrats"). The way this
Government performs is actually somewhat normal for this country since at least 1980 .
In addition, prior to the coronavirus challenge, both America and UK have been reducing,
instead of increasing, their social protections; and, therefore, they were the only
industrialized nations where life-expectancies were declining even before the coronavirus-19
hit. The recognition and concern about this decline started in UK, but has now started to be
published even in the U.S.
In other words: coronavirus hit UK at a
time when the Government was already moving away from socializing and into privatizing health
care; and, as a consequence, the death-rates had already started increasing in 2015.
Coronavirus kills mainly people who already have bad health; and, so, their population were
maximally vulnerable to it at the time when this epidemic struck.
Political-science studies that are based
upon decades of reliably reported data have established that ever since around 1980, the
United States has been a dictatorship: what the public wants (and even needs ) is basically
ignored, but what the super-rich (the country's actual dictators) simply want becomes reflected
in governmental policies. That's the very definition of a "dictatorship." The U.S. national
Government is responsive to the wants of its billionaires, not to the needs of the public (such
as protecting their health, education, and welfare, even when the billionaires don't want it
to).The findings in one of these studies are summarized well in a six-minute video, here .
Although the billionaires who fund America's liberal Party, the
Democratic Party, oppose the billionaires who fund the Republican Party (the conservative
Party -- the one that's overtly in favor of the existing wealth-inequality), this is purely for
PR purposes. Whenever the issue becomes their own wealth versus improving the wealth and
economic opportunity for the poor, they all go for expanding their own empire (sometimes by
funding a tax-exempt 'charity' that will increase, even more, their personal control over the
total empire -- by using that tax-exemption to leverage the operation, which will be controlled
by themselves instead of by the public tax-funded government). Such 'charities' are mainly
tax-dodges.
This is even proud policy ('fiscal
responsibility', etc.) in the Republican Party. Bailing-out investors is 'necessary', but
bailing out employees and consumers is 'fiscally irresponsible'. For example, on April 27th,
the Democrat David Sirota headlined "Red States Owe Workers More
Than $500 Billion -- The GOP Is Trying to Steal The Money: Trump is boosting a McConnell
plan to help states renege on promised retirement and health benefits to millions of workers
and retirees." And he is correct.
However, his Party is going to be compromising with that
(instead of adamantly refuse to accept it and then go on the political hustings shaming the
Republican President and Congress-members so as to break them on their blatantly scandalous
whoring to the entire billionaire-class, who want their investments to be bailed out before the
public is -- which might turn out to be never). It's a "good cop, bad cop," routine, to protect
the super-rich. It accepts holding the public hostage to what the big political donors want,
instead of focuses against that as being the central political issue of the moment, and of at
least post-1980 America.
They're just
trying to deceive their suckers into voting for Joe Biden, or else not voting at all; and, so,
their ad doesn't even so
much as just mention Biden. It's a Biden ad that makes no mention of Biden. It hides its true
motive. That's typical.
This is the reason why America is designed so as to fail the coronavirus-19 challenge. The
power of big-money (concentrated wealth) is destroying this country. It controls both Parties
and their respective media, so the public don't know (and certainly cannot understand) the
types of realities that are being reported (and linked-to) here.
A "good cop, bad cop" government is, in reality, all bad cop.
(I therefore proposed an Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution in order to rectify some of the reasons behind this structural failure of the
U.S. Government. Perhaps the only alternative to that would be violent revolution, but it would
probably make things even worse, not better.)
desertboy , 23 minutes ago
The fact [the existence of ] corporate prisons exist is pretty much an open declaration that we're a
kleptocracy, run by the uniparty.
Reign in Fact, 28 minutes ago
" The power of big-money (concentrated wealth) is destroying this country... This is
'democracy'-as-political-scam... "
No the scam is democracy itself. We give an EQUAL vote to children, imbeciles, hostiles,
and those who don't even speak the language, while allowing wholesale vote-buying bribery of
public unions.
No such system has ever thrived anywhere in the animal kingdom - equality without merit,
or rule by will of the laziest, weakest and dumbest - no matter how small the "society",
team, family, gang, union, band, corporation, religion or nation.
It can't and won't end well.
youshallnotkill , 15 minutes ago
Democracy is not about efficiency but to keep a check on those in power. It preventing the
concentration of powers. It all about checks and balances to preserve the citizens
freedoms.
The fact that you don't understand these where basics of why we have a republic is
testament to our failed school system.
Deep In Vocal Euphoria , 30 minutes ago
Demoracy...usa was a constitutional republic..........
AVmaster , 30 minutes ago
This hasn't been the american "design" since 23DEC1913......
Dragonlord , 1 minute ago
America's design to disable the freedom of state secession has ruined it. As a result, we
are facing the possibility of another civil war.
If conservatives really want to fix the system, they will have to change the way criminal cases file through it.
If there is an invisible hand to the justice system, then it belongs to a prosecutor. Prosecutors stand at many of the most momentous
points in the criminal justice process, wielding the power to transform someone from a defendant and free person into a prisoner.
Yet as conservatives in state after state work to reshape the justice system, prosecutorial reform is conspicuously absent from the
agenda. Why?
The answer is surely not that prosecutors are unable to advance new criminal justice priorities. While the political right is
largely asleep on the potential of prosecutors, the left awoke to it a few years ago and embraced a vision of "progressive prosecutors."
Since then, a growing number of progressives have been
elected in urban centers and other liberal enclaves on promises to reduce mass incarceration and eliminate racial and ethnic
disparities. Many have made remarkable strides, and their successes ought to be celebrated.
But "progressive" is hardly synonymous with fair, just, or effective prosecution. Plenty of prosecutors interested in all of those
things have no desire whatsoever to wear the "progressive" label or see the world through that lens. This is what makes the lack
of prosecutorial reform on the right so glaring.
Part of the problem may well be the quintessential conservative belief that Policy with a capital "P" is exclusively for the legislature
to decide. In this view, prosecutors are little more than administrators and should not attempt to alter in any way the broader course
of the justice system. The law is the law; prosecutors are there simply to enforce it.
Except that's not how things actually work. The legislature cannot possibly outline which cases to prioritize, which charges to
file, or which plea bargains to offer -- only a prosecutor can do that. Prosecutorial discretion and the Policy it sets are inevitable.
And the system, frankly, is better for it, because discretion leads to more local control, with each prosecutor asserting the needs
and preferences of their town or city.
So perhaps the responsibility for prosecutorial reform's failure to launch on the right lies with the natural inclination of most
conservatives to support members of law enforcement. They recognize that the great majority of prosecutors are hardworking, justice-minded
individuals, and that the word "reform" implies there is a problem that needs fixing.
But if that's the case, it misconstrues the nature of prosecutorial reform and does no service to the prosecutors they are aiming
to support . It is possible to be pro-prosecutor and pro-reform; indeed, the best reforms are those that will improve the
lot of prosecutors and those with whom they interact . For example, prosecutorial annual caseloads can reach over a
thousand cases in some places. Rallying behind reforms like charging policies that can lower these staggering numbers is very
much a defense of, not an assault on, prosecutors.
Whatever the reason for their reticence, conservatives stand only to benefit by seizing the mantle of prosecutorial reform. A
prosecutor willing to
reimagine
the status quo can simultaneously advance the four priorities that have guided conservative criminal justice reform: improved public
safety, greater fiscal responsibility, stronger due process protections, and respect for life and the value of family. In many instances,
they may be able to do a better job than the legislatures upon which conservatives have thus far concentrated their efforts.
After all, while legislators can write all the criminal laws they want, it is up to prosecutors to determine how they are actually
going to play out in practice. It is possible, for instance, to try to rein in the size of the justice system legislatively by scaling
back the criminal code or sentencing ranges. Yet doing so would require dozens or even hundreds of legislators working in concert
on multiple bills. Possible, sure. Simple or straightforward? Hardly.
Consider, on the other hand, what a single elected prosecutor can do for a jurisdiction. Charging and plea-bargaining alone mean
that prosecutors effectively determine who enters the system and how roughly 95 percent will exit it. With a stroke of her pen, a
single district attorney can sign a new policy that immediately reshapes the flow of criminal cases. At the end of the day, the legislature
may wield greater power, but it is hard to compete with a prosecutor's precision and speed.
Just look at the justice system transformation that has taken place under new district attorneys in Boston and San Francisco.
In Boston, prosecutors now presumptively
divert or dismiss fifteen
low-level misdemeanors, allowing prosecutors to focus on more serious offenses, while in San Francisco they unilaterally
ended the use of cash bail so that pretrial release decisions reflect risk rather than wealth. In both instances, these changes
affected more people than reside in either North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, or Wyoming. This is the force for change that conservatives
have been neglecting.
All this speaks to why prosecutorial reform should be placed squarely at the forefront of the conservative criminal justice agenda.
If not the old tough-on-crime status quo or the new progressive prosecutor movement, what should conservatives expect from a prosecutor?
To be, in a word, productive. Rather than promoting mere illusions of success like conviction rates or sentence lengths, conservatives
should consider the actual outcomes that prosecutorial decisions produce. Do they increase safety, aid defendant rehabilitation,
and help keep families whole? In short, are prosecutors doing everything in their power to improve community wellbeing?
The rewards for embracing and advocating on behalf of a new vision of prosecution could prove great.
Polling suggests
that voters of all stripes are eager for the types of reforms that prosecutors could help deliver on issues ranging from pretrial
detention to sentencing outcomes. Early successes by Republican chief prosecutors like
Melissa Nelson in Florida and
David Leavitt in Utah show that a renewed conservative commitment to being smarter and more evenhanded than one's predecessor
can be a winning strategy.
The history of the criminal justice reform movement shows that when conservatives prioritize an issue, they are able to achieve
remarkable success. This track record makes their general neglect of prosecutorial offices both perplexing and galling. If conservatives
truly want to reshape the justice system, then it is long past time for them to put the invisible hand of the prosecutor to use.
Lars Trautman is a senior fellow of criminal justice and civil liberties policy at the R Street Institute and a former assistant
district attorney.
The theme of this article is long over due. I was a law student in the late 60's. While my law school was progressive for its
time, very few of us were encouraged to consider becoming a prosecutor. This was at a time of the civil rights, equal employment,
criticism of the Vietnam war, voter's right and the like. I obtained a job at the Department of Justice and then in the local
US Attorney's office. It wasn't long before I figured out that I could have a greater impact on the fair administration of justice
as a prosecutor than I could ever have as a defense attorney. I became one of the more active prosecutors in our office to look
more deeply into the concept of using our unique position to more fairly and equitably mete our justice. When I became a defense
attorney I found that it was more difficult to insure that the proper result was given. Usually I found myself acting more as
an insurance policy to make sure that what should happen did happen. My prosecutorial experience brought greater credibility to
the task. Even so some 50 years later we are still trying to convince conservatives that prison is not the default answer to crime
in America.
Conservatives despite proclaiming that they are the party of personal liberty seem awfully OK with depriving people of their "precious
liberty". When you have 1 out of 50 in jail it might be time to consider what should and shouldn't be illegal and how illegal.
Some folks definitely need to be locked up, but when it costs society 70000 a year per prisoner we should exercise a little more
judgement in when we decide to spend that money.
"... So we are to know nothing about an accuser, his history, his motives, his loyalties? It seems that servants of the deep state are to be believed and protected without question... ..."
"... Let's be clear ~ Whistleblower/CIA who started this plan in January 2016... probably mentored by Brennan. ..."
"... This whole impeachment is sham much like the Russian investigation, it is clear just from the actions that we all have witnessed that the US intelligence agencies are guilty of attempting to overthrow the elected government. ..."
Update (1:45 p.m.): Paul was once again denied a question about whistleblower Eric
Ciaramella by Chief Justice Roberts during Thursday's round of impeachment questions in the
Senate.
He refused to read the question @RandPaul : "My question today is
about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama NSC and Democrat partisans
conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal
House impeachment proceedings." pic.twitter.com/8FIcu47PBl
Paul then took to Twitter - writing "My question today is about whether or not individuals
who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired
with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House
impeachment proceedings."
My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama
National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot
impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.
" Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close
relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you
aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to
plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. "
***
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was spitting mad Wednesday night after Chief Justice John Roberts
blocked his question concerning the CIA whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment of
President Trump.
According to both Politico
and The Hill , Roberts told Senators that he wouldn't read Paul's question, or any
other question which would require him to publicly say the whistleblower's name or otherwise
reveal his identity - which has been widely reported as CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, who worked
for the National Security Council under the Obama and Trump administrations - and who consulted
with Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) staff prior to filing the complaint.
Stunning that Adam Schiff lies to millions of Americans when he says he doesn't know the
identity of the whistleblower.
He absolutely knows the identity of the whistleblower b/c he coordinated with the
individual before the whistleblower's complaint! His staff helped write it!
A frustrated Paul was overheard expressing his frustration on the Senate floor during a
break in Wednesday's proceedings - telling a Republican staffer " If I have to fight for
recognition, I will. "
Roberts signaled to GOP senators on Tuesday that he wouldn't allow the whistleblower's
name to be mentioned during the question-and-answer session that started the next day, the
sources. Roberts was allowed to screen senators' questions before they were submitted for
reading on the Senate floor, the sources noted.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other top Republicans are also
discouraging disclosure of the whistleblower's identity as well . Paul has submitted at least
one question with the name of a person believed to be the whistleblower, although it was
rejected. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) composed and asked a question regarding the whistleblower
earlier Wednesday that tiptoed around identifying the source who essentially sparked the
House impeachment drive. - Politico
"We've got members who, as you have already determined I think, have an interest in
questions related to the whistleblower," said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD), adding
"But I suspect that won't happen. I don't think that happens. And I guess I would hope it
doesn't."
That said, Paul says he's not giving up - telling reporters "It's still an ongoing process,
it may happen tomorrow."
Does Ciaramella deserve 'anonymity'?
Of note, Roberts did not offer any legal argument for hiding the whistleblower's identity -
which leads to an
interesting argument from Constitutional law expert and impeachment witness Johnathan
Turley concerning whistleblower anonymity.
Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress -- only
protection from retaliation . Conversely, the presiding officer rarely stands in the path of
senators seeking clarification or information from the legal teams. Paul could name the
whistleblower on the floor without violation federal law. Moreover, the Justice Department
offered a compelling analysis that the whistleblower complaint was not in fact covered by the
intelligence law (the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to Congress). The Justice
Department's Office of Legal Counsel found that the complaint did not meet the legal definition
of "urgent" because it treated the call between Trump and a head of state was if the president
were an employee of the intelligence community. The OLC found that the call "does not relate to
'the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity' under the authority of
the Director of National Intelligence . . . As a result, the statute does not require the
Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees. " The Council
of the Inspectors General on Integrity and EfficiencyCouncil strongly disagree with that
reading.
Regardless of the merits of this dispute, Roberts felt that his position allows him to
curtail such questions and answers as a matter of general decorum and conduct. It is certainly
true that all judges are given some leeway in maintaining basic rules concerning the conduct
and comments of participants in such "courts."
This could lead to a confrontation over the right of senators to seek answers to lawful
questions and the authority of the presiding office to maintain basic rules of fairness and
decorum . It is not clear what the basis of the Chief Justice's ruling would be in barring
references to the name of the whistleblower if his status as a whistleblower is contested and
federal law does not protect his name. Yet, there are many things that are not prohibited by
law but still proscribed by courts. This issue however goes to the fact-finding interests of a
senator who must cast a vote on impeachment. Unless Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can defuse
the situation, this afternoon could force Roberts into a formal decision with considerable
importance for this and future trials.
Technically he's not a Whistleblower, he's an Informant. To be a whistleblower Ciaramella
would have to inform on the CIA. Because that's who he worked for.
If the Senate is truly the Chief Justices Court the Chief Justice can modify the rules
case by case. In this case he made the wrong decision and Senator Paul is concerned I agree
with Senator Paul.
I'd have double-tapped that ****** and pissed in his face while he bled to death. And I'd
have been a little bit "slow" to dial 911 after I'd dialed 9MM.
Interesting how Trump does not need to make any more appointments to SCOTUS. I figure RBG
is not long for the court, but Roberts might beat her to it. Either way, the majority
strengthens by subtraction.
So we are to know nothing about an accuser, his history, his motives, his loyalties?
It seems that servants of the deep state are to be believed and protected without
question...
The Deep State agents must be protected at all costs, including obstruction of justice and
failing to allow relevant information to be submitted without reference to a
whistleblower.
The chief justice will not allow CIA agents who conspire and plan a coup to overthrow the
president to be revealed for it would destroy any sliver of credibility they have left.
I think it's hilarious that they actually believe they can remove a President based on
nothing but hidden "evidence" and that we will all just accept that! These people are the
Alpha and Omega of stupid!
The problem is, there seems to be no court to try him. Actually SCOTUS would be that
court, but it's questionable, if the Conservative bench at SCOTUS would dare to take that
case, even though they would be in majority, since „Chief Judge" Roberts would - as
party in the case - not be allowed to vote in that matter
The problem with all these compromised a-holes, like Roberts is they are slaves to the
state. Their oath to office needs to be rewritten, with hand placed on an enormous money
vault.
Why call someone clearly guilty of sedition a whistle blower?
This whole impeachment is sham much like the Russian investigation, it is clear just
from the actions that we all have witnessed that the US intelligence agencies are guilty of
attempting to overthrow the elected government.
A MUST READ! Sidney Powell's book
"Licensed to Lie" reveals the strong-arm, illegal, and unethical tactics used by
headline-grabbing federal prosecutors in their narcissistic pursuit of power to the highest
halls of our government. It's terrifying–because it's true. It should be required
reading for every law student, lawyer, judge, politician, and concerned taxpayer.
Sidney Powell has written a book like no other lawyer has ever dared – and she's
pulled back the royal blue curtain of the Department of Justice.
"... Absolutely standard procedure in this case where the conduct took place openly over years would include: a. informants wearing wires; b. securing the crime scenes, including all the properties and the planes; c. simultaneous arrests of 20-50 co-defendants/conspirators ranging from Maxwell and Wexner at the top to most all staff at the properties where the crimes occurred, the pilots, etc. None of this happened. ..."
"... The Bureau of Prisons has two main operations: prisons for convicted offenders and "federal jails". They are completely separate lines of business. The purpose of the "jails" in the federal system, where each District has its own, is to obtain convictions from the detainees. The BOP staff in the jails are members of the prosecution team for all practical purposes. All mail in and out is read and copied. All calls are monitored and recorded. Detainees are placed in units after consultations among the BOP, U.S. Marshals and U.S. Attorneys for the District. ..."
"... Cooperating codefendants may all be placed on the same unit, for example, so that they get their stories straight, while those fighting cases are elsewhere. ..."
"... Snitching is rampant and good information is rewarded by downgrading of charges, lenient sentencing and assignment to sweet spots in the prison system. Berman and his team were involved in formulating and were continuously aware of the most minute details of the conditions of Epstein's confinement. ..."
skeptic23 says: September
3, 2019 at 1:00 am GMT 400 Words Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy ,
because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think
Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it, and I don't think President Trump could have
except by firing Berman. I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've heard of him
and because he instantly and publicly said he would have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept.
Inspector-General investigate Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal prison head
honcho.
The above statement re: Berman is exactly wrong. He is a Trump Appointee and transition team
member.
1. There was no real Epstein indictment/investigation , just a piece of paper
sufficient to take him into custody and institute a criminal proceeding.
Absolutely standard procedure in this case where the conduct took place openly over
years would include: a. informants wearing wires; b. securing the crime scenes, including all
the properties and the planes; c. simultaneous arrests of 20-50 co-defendants/conspirators
ranging from Maxwell and Wexner at the top to most all staff at the properties where the crimes
occurred, the pilots, etc. None of this happened.
They took computers and records from NY and visited Little St. James for a few hours 30 days
after the arrest. see Rusty Shackleford videos. The way they always build a case like this is
to get the little guys to talk and then move up the food chain to the big boys (and girls).
2. The Bureau of Prisons has two main operations: prisons for convicted offenders and
"federal jails". They are completely separate lines of business. The purpose of the "jails" in
the federal system, where each District has its own, is to obtain convictions from the
detainees. The BOP staff in the jails are members of the prosecution team for all practical
purposes. All mail in and out is read and copied. All calls are monitored and recorded.
Detainees are placed in units after consultations among the BOP, U.S. Marshals and U.S.
Attorneys for the District.
Cooperating codefendants may all be placed on the same unit, for example, so that they
get their stories straight, while those fighting cases are elsewhere.
Snitching is rampant and good information is rewarded by downgrading of charges, lenient
sentencing and assignment to sweet spots in the prison system. Berman and his team were
involved in formulating and were continuously aware of the most minute details of the
conditions of Epstein's confinement.
Berman was at the center of whatever it was that happened.
While details on Epstein death are not interesting (he ended like a regular pimp) the corruption of high level officials his case
revealed in more troubling.
Notable quotes:
"... Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence. The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. ..."
"... What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President, the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public. I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath. ..."
"... What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein, but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney. ..."
"... Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. ..."
"... Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them. Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's friends are professional networkers. One reporter said of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man. ..."
"... Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 ( as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite. ..."
"... Statutory rape is not a federal crime ..."
"... At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him. The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large. ..."
"... Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations? ..."
"... Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days at home instead of at jail. ..."
"... In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the police didn't enforce the rule that required him to check in every 90 days. ..."
"... Trafficking is a federal offense, so it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure. ..."
"... Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more leisurely task. ..."
"... Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy, because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it, and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. ..."
"... "It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska, joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried. ..."
"... President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up. ..."
"... he sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper. ..."
"... Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner? ..."
"... Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman, Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very little in the way of political contributions , though that little went mostly to Democrats ( $139,000 vs. $18,000 . I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them. ..."
"... What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this? ..."
"... Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people who asked for Rich to be pardoned . Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton to come to office and pardon them. ..."
"... "intelligence" is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure." ..."
"... James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him , and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing: The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them? ..."
"... There seems to have been an orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's been paid off. National Review had an article, "The Conspiracy Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this? ..."
"... The New York Times was, to its credit, willing to embarrass other publications by 2019. But the Times itself had been part of the cover-up in previous years . Who else was? ..."
"... Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened" to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation ..."
"... As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations. Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they die, I couldn't care less. ..."
"... We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The guards were tired and forced to work overtime. ..."
"... One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/ ..."
"... ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching teens ..."
The Jeffrey Epstein case is notable for the ups and downs in media coverage it's gotten over the years. Everybody, it seems, in
New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover
it. Articles by New York in 2002 and
Vanity Fair in 2003 alluded to it gently,
while probing Epstein's finances more closely. In 2005, the Palm Beach police investigated. The county prosecutor, Democrat Barry
Krischer, wouldn't prosecute for more than prostitution, so they went to the federal prosecutor, Republican Alexander Acosta, and
got the FBI involved. Acosta's office prepared an indictment, but before it was filed, he made a deal: Epstein agreed to plead guilty
to a state law felony and receive a prison term of 18 months. In exchange, the federal interstate sex trafficking charges would not
be prosecuted by Acosta's office. Epstein was officially at the county jail for 13 months, where the county officials under Democratic
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw gave him scandalously
easy treatment , letting him spend his days outside, and letting him serve a year of probation in place of the last 5 months
of his sentence. Acosta's office complained, but it was a county jail, not a federal jail, so he was powerless.
Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence.
The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. Two books were written about the affair, and
fell flat. The FBI became interested again around 2011 (
a little known fact
) and maybe things were happening behind the scenes, but the next big event was in 2018 when the Miami Herald published a
series of investigative articles rehashing what had happened.
In 2019 federal prosecutors indicted Epstein, he was put in jail, and
he mysteriously died. Now, after much complaining in the press about how awful jails are and how many people commit suicide, things
are quiet again, at least until the Justice Department and
the State of Florida finish their
investigation a few years from now. (For details and more links, see " Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein
"at Medium.com and " Jeffrey Epstein " at Wikipedia
.)
I'm an expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking. What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President,
the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public.
I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup
plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where
I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath.
That's what Epstein would do. What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein,
but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly
better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start
giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney.
Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. The reason people call such talk
"conspiracy theories" when it comes to Epstein is that his friends are WASPs and Jews, not Italians and Mexicans. But WASPs and Jews
are human too. They want to protect themselves. Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on
their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework
basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them.
Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's
friends are professional networkers.
One reporter said
of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know
people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least
one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man.
In light of this, it would be very surprising if someone with a spare $50 million to spend to solve the Epstein problem didn't
give it a try. A lot of people can be bribed for $50 million. Thus, we should have expected to see bribery attempts. If none were
detected, it must have been because prison workers are not reporting they'd been approached.
Some
people say that government incompetence is always a better explanation than government malfeasance. That's obviously wrong --
when an undeserving business gets a contract, it's not always because the government official in charge was just not paying attention.
I can well believe that prisons often take prisoners off of suicide watch too soon, have guards who go to sleep and falsify records,
remove cellmates from prisoners at risk of suicide or murder, let the TV cameras watching their most important prisoners go on the
blink, and so forth. But that cuts both ways.
Remember, in the case of Epstein, we'd expect a murder attempt whether the warden of
the most important federal jail in the country is competent or not. If the warden is incompetent, we should expect that murder attempt
to succeed. Murder becomes all the more more plausible. Instead of spending $50 million to bribe 20 guards and the warden, you just
pay some thug $30,000 to walk in past the snoring guards, open the cell door, and strangle the sleeping prisoner, no fancy James
Bond necessary. Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 (
as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government
incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite.
Now to my questions.
Why is nobody blaming the Florida and New York state prosecutors for not prosecuting Epstein and others for statutory rape?
Statutory rape is not a federal crime, so it is not something the Justice Dept. is supposed to investigate or prosecute. They
are going after things like interstate sex trafficking. Interstate sex trafficking is generally much harder to prove than statutory
rape, which is very easy if the victims will testify.
At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him.
The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other
culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large.
Note that if even if the evidence is just the girl's word against Ghislaine Maxwell's or Prince Andrew's, it's still quite possible
to get a jury to convict. After all, who would you believe, in a choice between Maxwell, Andrew, and Anyone Else in the World? For
an example of what can be done if the government is eager to convict, instead of eager to protect important people, see
the 2019 Cardinal
Pell case in Australia. He was convicted by the secret testimony of a former choirboy, the only complainant, who claimed Pell
had committed indecent acts during a chance encounter after Mass before Pell had even unrobed. Naturally, the only cardinal to be
convicted of anything in the Catholic Church scandals is also the one who's done the most to fight corruption. Where there's a will,
there's a way to prosecute. It's even easier to convict someone if he's actually guilty.
Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went
easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations?
Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually
went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days
at home instead of at jail.
In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified
as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the
police didn't enforce the
rule that required him to check in every 90 days.
How easy would it have been to prove in 2016 or 2019 that Epstein and his people were guilty of federal sex trafficking?
Not easy, I should think. It wouldn't be enough to prove that Epstein debauched teenagers. Trafficking is a federal offense, so
it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure.
The 2019 indictment
is weak on this. The "interstate commerce" looks like it's limited to Epstein making phone calls between Florida and New York. This
is why I am not completely skeptical when former U.S. Attorney Acosta says that the 2008 nonprosecution deal was reasonable. He had
strong evidence the Epstein violated Florida state law -- but that wasn't relevant. He had to prove violations of federal law.
Why didn't Epstein ask the Court, or the Justice Dept., for permission to have an unarmed guard share his cell with him?
Epstein had no chance at bail without bribing the judge, but this request would have been reasonable. That he didn't request a
guard is, I think, the strongest evidence that he wanted to die. If he didn't commit suicide himself, he was sure making it easy
for someone else to kill him.
Could Epstein have used the safeguard of leaving a trove of photos with a friend or lawyer to be published if he died an unnatural
death?
Well, think about it -- Epstein's lawyer was Alan Dershowitz. If he left photos with someone like Dershowitz, that someone could
earn a lot more by using the photos for blackmail himself than by dutifully carrying out his perverted customer's instructions. The
evidence is just too valuable, and Epstein was someone whose friends weren't the kind of people he could trust. Probably not even
his brother.
Who is in danger of dying next?
Prison workers from guard to warden should be told that if they took bribes, their lives are now in danger. Prison guards may
not be bright enough to realize this. Anybody who knows anything important about Epstein should be advised to publicize their information
immediately. That is the best way to stay alive.
This is not like a typical case where witnesses get killed so they won't testify.
It's not like with gangsters. Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and
rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty
of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential
informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more
leisurely task.
What happened to Epstein's body?
The Justice Dept. had better not have let Epstein's body be cremated. And they'd better give us convincing evidence that it's
his body. If I had $100 million to get out of jail with, acquiring a corpse and bribing a few people to switch fingerprints and DNA
wouldn't be hard. I find it worrying that the government has not released proof that Epstein is dead or a copy of the autopsy.
"Beyond its isolation, the wing is infested with rodents and cockroaches, and inmates often have to navigate standing water
-- as well as urine and fecal matter -- that spills from faulty plumbing, accounts from former inmates and lawyers said. One lawyer
said mice often eat his clients' papers."
" Often have to navigate standing water"? "Mice often eat his clients' papers?" Really? I'm skeptical. What do the
vermin eat -- do inmates leave Snickers bars open in their cells? Has anyone checked on what the prison conditions really like?
Is it just a coincidence that Epstein made a new will two days before he died?
I can answer this one. Yes, it is coincidence, though it's not a coincidence that he rewrote the will shortly after being denied
bail. The will leaves everything to a trust, and it is the trust document (which is confidential), not the will (which is public),
that determines who gets the money. Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably
changed that because he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the
will.
Did Epstein's veiled threat against DOJ officials in his bail filing backfire?
Epstein's lawyers wrote in his bail request,
"If the government is correct that the NPA does not, and never did, preclude a prosecution in this district, then the government
will likely have to explain why it purposefully delayed a prosecution of someone like Mr. Epstein, who registered as a sex offender
10 years ago and was certainly no stranger to law enforcement. There is no legitimate explanation for the delay."
I see this as a veiled threat. The threat is that Epstein would subpoena people and documents from the Justice Department relevant
to the question of why there was a ten-year delay before prosecution, to expose the illegitimate explanation for the delay. Somebody
is to blame for that delay, and court-ordered disclosure is a bigger threat than an internal federal investigation.
Who can we trust?
Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy,
because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it,
and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've
heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate
Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often
honorable.
Someone else who may be a hero in this is Senator Ben Sasse.
Vicki Ward
writes in the Daily Beast :
"It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska,
joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried.
Given the political sentiment, it's unsurprising that the FBI should feel newly emboldened to investigate Epstein -- basing
some of their work on Brown's excellent reporting."
Will President Trump Cover Up Epstein's Death in Exchange for Political Leverage?
President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the
press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but
acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot
in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up.
Why did Judge Sweet order Epstein documents sealed in 2017. Did he die naturally in 2019?
Judge Robert Sweet in 2017 ordered all documents in an Epstein-related case sealed. He died in May 2019 at age 96, at home in
Idaho. The sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were
released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment
figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but
his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper.
Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner?
Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman,
Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who
has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken
Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very
little in the way of
political contributions
, though that little went mostly to Democrats (
$139,000 vs. $18,000
. I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them.
What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this?
Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned
by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people
who asked for Rich to be pardoned
. Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton
to come to office and pardon them.
Acosta said that Washington Bush Administration people told him to go easy on Epstein because he was an intelligence source. That
is plausible. Epstein had info and blackmailing ability with people like Ehud Barak, leader of Israel's Labor Party. But "intelligence"
is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure."
Why did nobody pay attention to the two 2016 books on Epstein?
James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him ,
and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing:
The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them?
Which newspapers reported Epstein's death as "suicide" and which as "apparent suicide"?
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug? There seems to have been an
orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's
been paid off. National Review had an article,
"The Conspiracy
Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's
assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this?
How much did Epstein corrupt the media from 2008 to 2019?
Even outlets that generally publish good articles must be suspected of corruption. Epstein made an effort to get good publicity.
The New York Times
wrote,
"The effort led to the publication of articles describing him as a selfless and forward-thinking philanthropist with an interest
in science on websites like Forbes, National Review and HuffPost .
All three articles have been removed from their sites in recent days, after inquiries from TheNew York Times .
The National Review piece, from the same year, called him "a smart businessman" with a "passion for cutting-edge science."
Ms. Galbraith was also a publicist for Mr. Epstein, according to several news releases promoting Mr. Epstein's foundations In
the article that appeared on the National Review site, she described him as having "given thoughtfully to countless organizations
that help educate underprivileged children."
"We took down the piece, and regret publishing it," Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review since 1997, said in an email.
He added that the publication had "had a process in place for a while now to weed out such commercially self-interested pieces from
lobbyists and PR flacks.""
Eric Rasmusen is an economist who has held an endowed chair at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business and visiting
positions at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, the Harvard Economics Department, Chicago's Booth School of Business, Nuffield
College/Oxford, and the University of Tokyo Economics Department. He is best known for his book Games and Information. He has published
extensively in law and economics, including recent articles on the burakumin outcastes in Japan, the use of game theory in jurisprudence,
and quasi-concave functions. The views expressed here are his personal views and are not intended to represent the views of the Kelley
School of Business or Indiana University. His vitae is at http://www.rasmusen.org/vita.htm
.
Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has
been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened"
to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation
Apparently, there will always be many players on the field, and many ways to do damage control.
So the problem was finding a motivated prosecutor in case of Jewish predator with very likely links to intelligence services
of several countries. The motivation was obviously lacking.
Your "expertise" in game theory would be greatly improved if you let yourself consider the Jewish factor.
As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally
I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations.
Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the
world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they
die, I couldn't care less.
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug?
Not the National Enquirer:
Jeffrey Epstein Murder Cover-up Exposed!
Death Scene Staged to Look Like Suicide
Billionaire's Screams Ignored by Guards!
Fatal Attack Caught on Jail Cameras!
Autopsy is Hiding the Truth!
I don't hold AG Barr in the high regard this piece does. While I'm not suggesting he had anything to do with Epstein's
death I do think he's corrupt. I doubt he will do anything that leads to the truth. As for him relieving the warden of
his duties, I would hope that was to be expected, wasn't it? I mean he only had two attempts on Epstein's life with the second
being a success. Apparently the first didn't jolt the warden into some kind of action as it appears he was guilty of a number
of sins including 'Sloth.'
As for the publications that don't like conspiracy theories –like the National Review
-- they are a hoot. We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The
guards were tired and forced to work overtime. There was no camera specifically in the cell with Epstein.
In the end I think Epstein probably was allowed to kill himself but I'm not confident in that scenario at all. And yes the media
should pressure Barr to hav e a look in the cell and see exactly how a suicide attempt might have succeeded or if it was a long-shot
at best, given the materiel and conditions.
19. Why is the non-prosecution agreement ambiguous ("globally" binding), when it was written by the best lawyers in the country
for a very wealthy client? Was the ambiguity bargained-for? If so, what are the implications?
20. With "globally" still being unresolved (to the bail judge's first-paragraph astonishment), why commit suicide now?
21. The "it was malfeasance" components are specified. For mere malfeasance to have been the cause, all of the components would
have to be true; it would be a multiplicative function of the several components. Is no one sufficiently quantitative to estimate
the magnitude?
22. What is the best single takeaway phrase that emerges from all of this? My nomination is: "In your face." The brazen, shameless,
unprecedented, turning-point, in-your-faceness of it.
ER the answer is easy to you list of questions .. there is no law in the world when violations are not prosecuted and fair open
for all to see trials are not held and judges do not deliver the appropriate penalties upon convictions. .. in cases involving
the CIA prosecution it is unheard of that a open for all to see trial takes place.
This is why we the governed masses need a parallel government..
such an oversight government would allow to pick out the negligent or wilful misconduct of persons in functional government
and prosecute such persons in the independent people's court.. Without a second government to oversee the first government there
is no democracy; democracy cannot stand and the governed masses will never see the light of a fair day .. unless the masses have
oversight authority on what is to be made into law, and are given without prejudice to their standing in America the right to
charge those associated to government with negligent or wilful misconduct.
There are big questions this article is not asking either
The words 'Mossad' seems not to appear above, and just a brief mention of 'Israel' with Ehud Barak
One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist
billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many
Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney
Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/
Was escape to freedom & Israe,l the ultimate payoff for Epstein's decades of work for Mossad, grooming and abusing young teens,
filmed in flagrante delicto with prominent people for political blackmail?
Is it not likely this was a Mossad jailbreak covered by fake 'suicide', with Epstein alive now, with US gov now also in possession
of the assumed Epstein sexual blackmail video tapes?
We have the Epstein 'death in jail' under the US Attorney General Bill Barr, a former CIA officer 1973-77, the CIA supporting
him thru night law school, Bill Barr's later law firm Kirkland Ellis representing Epstein
Whose Jewish-born ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage
teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching
teens
So would a crypto-Jewish 'former' CIA officer who is now USA Attorney General, possibly help a Mossad political blackmailer
escape to Israel after a fake 'jail suicide'?
An intriguing 4chan post a few hours after Epstein's 'body was discovered', says Epstein was put in a wheelchair and driven
out of the jail in a van, accompanied by a man in a green military uniform – timestamp is USA Pacific on the screencap apparently,
so about 10:44 NYC time Sat.10 Aug
FWIW, drone video of Epstein's Little St James island from Friday 30 August, shows a man who could be Epstein himself, on the
left by one vehicle, talking to a black man sitting on a quad all-terrain unit
Close up of Epstein-like man between vehicles, from video note 'pale finger' match-up to archive photo Epstein
The thing that sticks out for me is that Epstein was caught, charged, and went to jail previously, but he didn't die .
The second time, it appears he was murdered. I strongly suspect that the person who murdered Epstein was someone who only met
Epstein after 2008, or was someone Epstein only procured for after 2008. Otherwise, this person would have killed Epstein
back when Epstein was charged by the cops the first time.
Either that, or the killer is someone who is an opponent of Trump, and this person was genuinely terrified that Trump would
pressure the Feds to avoid any deals and to squeeze all the important names out of Epstein and prosecute them, too.
The author professes himself "expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking," but he doesn't say how his 18 questions
were arrived at to the exclusion of hundreds of others. Instead, the column includes several casual assumptions and speculation.
For example:
"Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably changed that because
he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the will."
"President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein."
"I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would
have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal
prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often honorable."
As to this last, isn't "quickly [firing] the federal prison head honcho" consistent with a failure-to-prevent-suicide deflection
strategy? And has Mr. Rasmusen not "heard" of the hiring of Mr. Epstein by Mr. Barr's father? Or of the father's own Establishment
background?
I hope to be wrong, but my own hunch is that these investigations, like the parallel investigations of the RussiaGate hoax,
will leave the elite unscathed. I also hope that in the meantime we see more rigorous columns here than this one.
...Also, subsequently, it should have been a top priority to arrest Ghislaine Maxwell but the government, justice and media
lack interest . Apparently, they don't know where she is, and they're not making any special efforts to find out.
"... It's very hard to commit suicide while on suicide watch as described. In fact, most successful suicides in jails do not happen among inmates on suicide watch ..."
"... For this reason, patients coming off of active suicide watch should always have at least one roommate, more if possible. And even more important than being a suicide "alarm" is the psychological benefits of roommates. Depressed patients need social interaction and someone to talk to. ..."
It wasn't just the guards' failure, suggests jail doctor Jeffrey Keller
by Jeffrey E. Keller, MD August 16, 2019
Jeffrey Epstein's apparent suicide while in custody at a Manhattan detention facility has focused intense media scrutiny into
jail suicide prevention procedures. Suicide is the biggest cause of death in jails in the U.S. -- by far. Because of this, all jails
(including the facility where Epstein was housed) have a suicide prevention policy. Since the process was an epic failure at that
Manhattan facility, it might be useful to discuss how a jail suicide prevention program is supposed to work.
Suicide prevention efforts begin when inmates initially arrive at the jail. The booking process includes several questions and
observations designed to estimate suicide risk. Inmates are asked point blank if they are suicidal or are thinking of hurting themselves.
Inmates who have attempted suicide or harmed themselves in the past, those who have been using heroin or other drugs and are facing
withdrawal, and those who have been off of their normal psychiatric medications all have an increased risk of suicide. Especially
important are inmates who face public shaming because of their charges (think child porn). These have an especially high suicide
risk.
Once all of these questions (and others) have been asked, a yes-no decision must be made as to whether the inmate will be placed
on suicide watch. This is often a difficult judgment call. On the one hand, you don't want to miss any truly suicidal patients. On
the other hand, suicide precautions can be harsh, even by jail standards. In Jeffrey Epstein's case, he was indeed initially placed
on suicide precautions.
The process
Let's consider a male patient charged with child abuse who says at booking, "My life is over, so I'm going to kill myself. There
is nothing you can do to stop me." This patient would, of course, be placed on maximum suicide precautions. There are two main goals
of jail suicide precautions. The first and most important is to not allow the patient to kill himself! The second goal is to get
the patient mental health counseling and treatment.
To accomplish the first goal, our suicidal patient would be placed in a cell especially designed to have nothing that could be
used for self-harm. Much care has gone into the design of these cells. The light fixtures must be recessed and inaccessible. There
can be no sharp edges or bits of metal. (I once had an inmate who peeled off a small piece of metal from a poorly designed door and
sliced open his brachial artery. He did not die, thank goodness.) Even the pegs to hang clothes on are designed so they cannot support
a person's weight.
Since regular clothes, blankets, and sheets can be torn and braided to make a noose, our patient would be issued a special suicide
garment and blanket. These are designed to be impossible (or nearly so) to be used to hang oneself. These are too tough to be ripped
into anything that could be used as a noose. The garment has Velcro stays not strong enough to support a person's weight. However,
suicide garments are certainly not comfortable. Some patients think they are demeaning, refuse to wear them, and walk around naked.
Since some suicidal patients can still find ways to harm themselves despite the special cell and special garments, suicidal patients
are usually placed under observation as well. Suicide cells typically have large plexiglass windows to allow easy observation. How
observation works varies from jail to jail. Some jails use "sitters" to observe suicidal patients. These are people whose only job
is to sit by the plexiglass window and watch, 24/7. If the patient is on the toilet, the sitter is watching. Other jails have more
informal observation of suicidal patients, usually by correctional officers who have other tasks to do besides watching the inmate.
Almost always, though, the officer must document a visual check of suicidal patients on a log every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day.
The second goal of suicide observation is to get the patient mental health treatment. Mental health professionals will typically
see a patient on suicide watch at least every day. Psychiatrists or other medical practitioners will also see these patients and
prescribe appropriate psychiatric medications. Patients who are actively a danger to themselves (think repeatedly running headfirst
into the wall) may need physical restraint, perhaps with a specially designed chair or involuntary sedation pending commitment procedures.
Most suicidal patients stabilize over time thanks to counselling, medications, and self-reflection. After three days of suicide
precautions, our patient might say, "I'm not suicidal any more. I won't hurt myself." Usually, suicide precautions are phased out
in a step-wise fashion. Our patient might be given back his regular clothes but kept under observation for one more day, then sent
to regular housing.
It's very hard to commit suicide while on suicide watch as described. In fact, most successful suicides in jails do not happen
among inmates on suicide watch. Jeffrey Epstein is a prime example. He had been released from active suicide watch. The correctional
officers were still supposed to do checks on him every 30 minutes (which they evidently did not do) but this was because he was in
a special housing cell rather than an open dorm.
Special housing cells tend to be small, typically two beds, and have small windows or observation ports on the door. The only
way to see inside is to walk up and look inside. Correctional officers are supposed to do this with all special housing cells every
30 minutes.
Of course, if you really want to commit suicide, 30 minutes is plenty of time. If the officers are not doing the checks, well,
that gives you even more leeway. However, in Jeffrey Epstein's case, the critical factor was not that the checks were not being done,
it was that he did not have a roommate! It is much harder to commit suicide with a roommate who will sound the alarm. It is even
harder when you are in a dorm with 40 others, any of whom can intercede.
For this reason, patients coming off of active suicide watch should always have at least one roommate, more if possible. And
even more important than being a suicide "alarm" is the psychological benefits of roommates. Depressed patients need social interaction
and someone to talk to. Isolation is psychologically hard, which you do not want to inflict on a patient who was recently suicidal.
According to news reports, Epstein's roommate was released and he was left isolated. This was perhaps the biggest mistake in his
case, even more than the 30-minute special housing checks not being done.
Jail suicide prevention programs absolutely work to reduce suicides when functioning properly. In Epstein's case, there were evidently
multiple failures.
Jeffrey E. Keller, MD, FACEP, is a board-certified emergency physician with 25 years of experience before moving full time
into his "true calling" of correctional medicine. He now works exclusively in jails and prisons, and blogs about correctional medicine
at JailMedicine.com .
Let's talk for a minute about the increasingly open hostilities between "get soft on crime"
prosectors from Deep Blue cities and states and an alliance of Red State and county
prosecutors with the backing of Bill Barr's DOJ.
Barr addressed the issue about a week ago in New Orleans:
And, like clockwork, a cause celebre erupts in North suburban Chicago, as a gang of street
thugs uses car stolen in the city to travel to Lake County on a nighttime spree. But as luck
would have it, a 75 year old man with a legally registered gun shot one of the gang bangers
(a 14 year old carrying a large Bowie knife) and killed him. The 18 year old accomplices took
off, and now the County Attorney is bringing charges of Felony Murder against the rest of the
criminal squad. Well, the Chicago media is outraged by this, and the pressure is building on
the prosecutor to go light on the poor dears, most of whom have a rap sheet a mile long.
In about 5 seconds, I expect Kim Foxx (of Jussie Smollett fame) to get on a very high
horse and start race baiting Lake County (largely white) in an effort to intimidate our
elected officials into adopting her "leave no criminal behind" strategy for cleaning up
Chicago's streets. I guess the strategy is to send them outside the city on raiding runs.
I'd be interested in stories from other parts of the country. Is anyone else experiencing
something similar? How do we fight this trend? What does it portend for the future?
"... A secret plea bargain and non-prosecution agreement with the federal government is what happened. It shifted the public face to the Florida state court system with Epstein pleading to two state prostitution crimes, which implied, of course, that the complainants were prostitutes. The public is now aware that the result was Epstein sleeping at the county jail and then going to his office during the day, for 13 months. Registering as a sex offender has not curtailed his travel or daily activity. ..."
"... The whole nasty business disappeared from view and would have stayed hidden in its nicely wrapped package except that two civil lawsuits have pulled some of it into the light. ..."
"... With that background, we come to the recent fascinating events, in which Epstein was arrested, and the role of Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta in this whole rotten mess was revealed to some extent. He had been the U.S. Attorney for that part of Florida at that time ..."
"... There you have it: "... this case ... had input and vetting at multiple levels of the Department of Justice." The cat was out of the bag. It was a sad sight: Alex Acosta, after achieving two significant positions in the federal government, took a dive to be the fall guy. ..."
"... The non-prosecution agreement has signature dates from 24 September to 7 December 2007, and page 3 of Robert Josefsberg's lawsuit against Epstein confirms this. The Department of Justice is a bureaucracy, and even though a U.S. Attorney has significant authority and some independence, the Justice Department in Washington D.C. -- sometimes called "Main Justice" -- ultimately controls things. In the organizational chart, the U.S. Attorneys are under the Deputy Attorney General, the number two person [6] ..."
"... The U.S. Attorney General from 3 February 2005 to 17 September 2007 was Alberto Gonzales. Michael Mukasey was nominated on 17 September and became Attorney General on 8 November 2007 until Eric Holder was sworn in on 3 February 2009. ..."
"... The FBI Director from 4 September 2001 to 4 September 2013 was Robert Mueller. ..."
"... And from July 2008 into this year, the Justice Department has resisted the CVRA lawsuit in Florida. ..."
"... This material is presented here for viewing or downloading so that you can think for yourself. Mass media has reported next to nothing about the 11-year course of the Crime Victims' Rights Act lawsuit and the detail in the first 22 pages of the trial court's opinion, other than that the court found the government violated the CVRA. I am not aware of one word reported about the 2010 lawsuit brought by Robert Josefsberg against Epstein for breaching the non-prosecution agreement. ..."
"... Jeffrey Epstein was being protected. The process and communications that accomplished it, and who did it, are not yet known. ..."
"... Why nobody is above the law! Not even a President! Oh! Wait! 23 flights! And a scion of the house of Windsor allegedly involved as well? ..."
"... "The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida immunized all named and unnamed "potential co-conspirators" in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and also any powerbrokers who may have molested them." ..."
"... Who gets a plea deal in which "all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators" get immunity? https://gawker.com/flight-logs-put-clinton-dershowitz-on-pedophile-billio-1681039971 ..."
"... Epstein's NPA was limited to the Florida district of federal courts, hence another branch of the federal courts, the Southern District of New York, was free to re-open the issue..and did. ..."
"... Acosta says he acted in accordance with his superior's wishes at the DOJ. Plausible, but lets see some corroborating evidence. If he agreed to negotiate this NPA without getting his boss's orders in writing he is a remarkable fool. ..."
"... Arkancide? Epstein is linked with E Barak, and Nicole Junkermann, per flight logs. Presumably that is the intelligence link Acosta was babbling about. https://carbyne911.com/team/ ..."
"... Doubt if Bubba Bill was involved in any of Epstein's sexual shenanigans after being burnt by Lewinsky. Clinton always had the proverbial ability to "talk a dog off a gut wagon" and could most likely find an agreeable partner elsewhere. Might be wrong but doubt it. ..."
"... If I understand correctly, Epstein broke the agreement. Would it follow that the WTF!? immunity deal is now nixed? ..."
"... Crossing the Clinton cabal in any manner is seriously dangerous. The list of those who have and died mysteriously is very long. ..."
"... The sweetheart deal that Epstein received from Acosta and the DOJ seems rather unusual for the felony that is such a social taboo as you note. Not only did he get off extremely lightly but his co-conspirators were completely let off the hook. The way the children who were raped were also treated by the courts was also shameful. ..."
"... This case epitomizes the travesty of the current state of the rule of law. Sexual predators of children are typically thrown the book and quickly taken off the streets to serve a long sentence. Not only did that not happen but even worse he was allowed to continue his despicable behavior out in the open even when he was supposed to be serving his sentence. Clearly he had some powerful friends in the Bush administration, but even with these connections when such execrable behavior is shown repeatedly there were none with a conscience. A sad testament to the state of our justice system. ..."
"... The usual plea agreement requires the defendant to plead guilty to some federal criminal offense. The Epstein agreement did not require him to plead to a federal crime. It also did not require him to debrief or provide them with information. To the contrary, it required that the federal government do nothing to him or to other people who helped him or conspired with him to commit federal crimes! ..."
16 July 2019Alex Acosta let the cat out of the bag: the Justice Department knew all about the Jeffrey Epstein Florida
plea deal
A taboo in our culture that is also a crime is sexual contact with a child or young person -- usually less than 17 or 18 years
old -- by an adult or older person. An exception is sexual experimentation during the struggle of adolescence, when the persons are
no more than around two or three years apart in age, as long as there is consent. A greater age difference creates the crime often
called "statutory rape", in which a statute (a law passed by a legislature) says that legal consent for sexual contact cannot be
given by the underage person.
This taboo is a strong one, even more so than homicide, about which there are various levels and justifications, such as self-defense.
All over the country on a regular basis, underage sex crime cases are tried to a jury, even without medical or forensic evidence.
And with just one complainant and victim.
But then Jeffrey Epstein is named as a suspect in underage sex crimes in Palm Beach County, Florida, with not one complainant,
but with at least 20.
What was the local State Attorney, Barry Krischer, going to do? Apparently, not very much. Attention shifted to the federal U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, and the FBI. Was a federal prosecution pursued? No. Nothing.
A secret plea bargain and non-prosecution agreement with the federal government is what happened. It shifted the public face
to the Florida state court system with Epstein pleading to two state prostitution crimes, which implied, of course, that the complainants
were prostitutes. The public is now aware that the result was Epstein sleeping at the county jail and then going to his office during
the day, for 13 months. Registering as a sex offender has not curtailed his travel or daily activity.
The whole nasty business disappeared from view and would have stayed hidden in its nicely wrapped package except that two
civil lawsuits have pulled some of it into the light.
On 7 July 2008, a case under the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was filed in the Southern District of Florida by lawyers
Paul Cassell, Bradley Edwards, and two others against the federal government, with case number 08-cv-80736 [1]. Around ten and a
half years later, on 21 February 2019, the trial court judge issued a 33-page opinion and order granting a request for partial summary
judgment by two victims, ruling that there was no genuine issue of material fact about the assertion that the government violated
the CVRA by failing properly to confer with the victims, and that therefore a contested trial on that issue is not necessary. The
opinion is worth reading, and the first 22 pages are a detailed statement of facts about the non-prosecution agreement and the activity
surrounding it by lawyers for the government and Epstein, giving an insight into what was going on. The beginning of the opinion
references four startling factual assertions made by the complainants in their request for summary judgment and which the federal
government admitted without qualification in its response [2]:
"1. Between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls, including Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2,
at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, located in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere in the United States and overseas.
"2. Because Epstein and his co-conspirators knowingly traveled in interstate and international commerce to sexually abuse Jane
Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly situated victims, they committed violations of not only Florida law (see, e,g., Fla. Stat.
sections 794.05, 796.04, 796.045, 39.201 and 777.04), but also federal law, including repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. sections 1591,
2421, 2422, 2423, and 371).
"3. In addition to personally abusing his victims, Epstein also directed other persons to sexually abuse the girls. For example,
Nadia Marcinkova sexually abused Jane Doe 1 and other victims at the direction of Epstein.
"8. More generally, the FBI established that Epstein used paid employees to repeatedly find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein
worked in concert with others to obtain minor girls not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification
of others."
The present court activity is to figure out a procedure to determine a remedy for the government's violation of the CVRA and to
establish a remedy.
On 17 May 2010, a lawsuit revealing more of Epstein's degenerate attitude and mentality was filed in federal court in the Southern
District of Florida, with case number 10-cv-21586. It was based on parts 7 and 8 of the plea bargain / non-prosecution agreement,
that--
"7. The United Sates shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined
in 18 U.S.C. section 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the
United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative
for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the indentified individuals through that representative.
"8. [In part] If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra , elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest
damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to
proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. section 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal,
or common law."
Title 18, U.S. Code, section 2255, creates the right for an underage person (a minor) to bring a civil lawsuit in federal court
for money for personal injury suffered as a victim of certain federal crimes. The victim can seek money for the actual harm suffered,
or the fixed amount of $150,000, plus attorney fees and litigation costs. [3].
The attorney representative selected to help the females who wanted to seek compensation by that route under the non-prosecution
agreement (NPA) was Robert Josefsberg, of the Podhurst & Orseck law firm in Miami, Florida, known to have experience in litigation.
Some number over 12 of the 34 females named by the U.S. Attorney's Office as complainants against Epstein sought compensation through
the representative.
However, although Epstein agreed in the NPA to pay the attorney representative and to not contest liability in the claims the
females made under 18 U.S.C. 2255, he not only breached the agreement by contesting liability in the cases, but also he paid only
a small part of what was owed to Josefsberg, and tried to stiff the representative by not paying over $2 million dollars due for
attorney fees and costs!
For over 20 months, Josefsberg tried unsuccessfully to get Epstein to pay him under the NPA, and finally sued Epstein for breach
of contract and breach of the implied doctrine of good faith and fair dealing. Attached to the lawsuit document was a copy of the
NPA. Here are the scandalous plea bargain / non-prosecution agreement and addendum, and the informative original petition brought
by the representative for some of the victimized females:
This produced an amusing turn of events, shown by the court clerk's docket sheet. Epstein quickly settled with the attorney representative
by 8 June 2010, only 22 days after the lawsuit was filed [4]. After all, he had breached the NPA and it could have been cancelled
(and should have been) and a prosecution started in Florida.
Picking apart the NPA is in itself an interesting exercise, but looking at the agreement as a whole, you can see that it is designed
to keep his sexually abusive conduct from being disclosed, both as to criminal charges -- he pled only to state prostitution offenses
-- and as to civil cases involving females who decided to seek compensation through the NPA's representative and 18 U.S.C. section
2255. In those civil cases, Epstein agreed to not challenge his liability, so no stories would be told in court; the only issue would
be the amount of money to be paid.
With that background, we come to the recent fascinating events, in which Epstein was arrested, and the role of Labor Secretary
Alexander Acosta in this whole rotten mess was revealed to some extent. He had been the U.S. Attorney for that part of Florida at
that time. The NPA on page 2 asserted that: "On the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern
District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida,
provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below".
Well, not exactly. When publicity heated up, fingers were pointed at Acosta with the usual hollering by some that he should resign.
This produced a pathetic press conference on Wednesday, 10 July, in which Acosta tried to justify what the materials presented above
reveal [5]. On Friday, 12 July, when president Trump went outside the White House to talk to the press before leaving on a trip,
Acosta went with him. At around 1 minute, 40 seconds into this short video excerpt, Acosta says:
"I have seen coverage of this case, that is over 12 years old, that had input and vetting at multiple levels of the Department
of Justice. And as I look forward, I do not think it is right and fair for this administration's labor department to have Epstein
as the focus, rather than the incredible economy that we have today. And so I called the president this morning. I told him that
I thought the right thing was to step aside...."
There you have it: "... this case ... had input and vetting at multiple levels of the Department of Justice." The cat
was out of the bag. It was a sad sight: Alex Acosta, after achieving two significant positions in the federal government, took a
dive to be the fall guy.
"Multiple levels" of "input" and "vetting" at the DOJ, you say? Who might that be?
The non-prosecution agreement has signature dates from 24 September to 7 December 2007, and page 3 of Robert Josefsberg's
lawsuit against Epstein confirms this. The Department of Justice is a bureaucracy, and even though a U.S. Attorney has significant
authority and some independence, the Justice Department in Washington D.C. -- sometimes called "Main Justice" -- ultimately controls
things. In the organizational chart, the U.S. Attorneys are under the Deputy Attorney General, the number two person [6]
The U.S. Attorney General from 3 February 2005 to 17 September 2007 was Alberto Gonzales. Michael Mukasey was nominated on
17 September and became Attorney General on 8 November 2007 until Eric Holder was sworn in on 3 February 2009.
The FBI Director from 4 September 2001 to 4 September 2013 was Robert Mueller.
More research is needed to identify persons in various positions in the Department of Justice from 2005 through at least 2010,
when Epstein breached the NPA by contesting liability and failing to pay attorney fees and costs, and had to be sued by Robert Josefsberg
and the Podhurst & Orseck law firm.
And from July 2008 into this year, the Justice Department has resisted the CVRA lawsuit in Florida.
The CVRA opinion on page 3 confirmed that by May 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had drafted a 53-page indictment and an 82-page
prosecution memorandum about federal sex crimes committed by Epstein. The opinion on pages 5-6 quotes a letter to Epstein's counsel
that the U.S. Attorney's office did not have the power to bind the Immigration service, but that they did not plan on bringing immigration
charges against two of Epstein's female co-conspirators.
The CVRA opinion on page 7 tells us that--
"On September 21, 2007, Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer wrote the line prosecutor [Assistant U.S. Attorney] about
the proposed agreement and added: 'Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing. After this is resolved I
would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation'."
This material is presented here for viewing or downloading so that you can think for yourself. Mass media has reported next
to nothing about the 11-year course of the Crime Victims' Rights Act lawsuit and the detail in the first 22 pages of the trial court's
opinion, other than that the court found the government violated the CVRA. I am not aware of one word reported about the 2010 lawsuit
brought by Robert Josefsberg against Epstein for breaching the non-prosecution agreement.
From this information, you can see the brazen lack of a basis for the extra protection put in the plea bargain / NPA on page 5,
that--
"In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein
successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute
any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross,
Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova."
Jeffrey Epstein was being protected. The process and communications that accomplished it, and who did it, are not yet known.
[1] The Crime Victims' Rights Act, Title 18, United States Code, section 3771
[2] The request (motion) for partial summary judgment by the victims (Jane Doe 1 and 2) contained a list of what they claimed
were 157 undisputed material facts. The federal government filed a response which either admitted, or admitted with a qualification,
or denied the asserted facts. The numbered facts 1, 2, 3, and 8 were admitted.
I had hoped we would learn from today's hearings more regarding Epstein's source of wealth - and exactly how much it was. Plus
more info on his doctored passport. More about the money trail between him and various Florida officials.
Anyone new calling
the tip line - especially from during his time as a teacher at that prep school in NY? And more about the Dershowitz and Starr
involvement back 12 years ago.
Unfortunately the food fight between Trump and the four frosh sucked all the air out of the media.
Came across this site with the court documents .The FBI travelled to Australia in 2011 and interviewed ms Roberts at the american
consulate in Sydney.9 years ago then in 2015 she sued Epstein and maxwell. Only now in 2019 did Epstein fly back from Paris knowing
he was going to be arrested.
Some of those girls were collecting info for him and getting paid. The whole thing stinks time
to call in the plumbers.
Many things are disposed of by plea Bargaining. With high profile crimes, it is always difficult to know if you did the right
thing. Here, it is fairly obvious it wasn't. Acosta is a Harvard College/HLS, a very able and connected guy and his error here
has damaged his life.
The part that I haven't seen being reported or discussed:
"The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of Florida immunized all named and unnamed "potential co-conspirators" in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes
those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and also any powerbrokers who may have molested them."
Thanks for the link to the NPA I didn't realize it was in the public domain, it is an astonishing read. I'm not familiar with
NPA's (having never been party to one!) so forgive me if the following questions are uninformed:
To what extent are NPA's legally binding upon the USG, are there circumstances where a court can set one aside for reasons
other than breach of contract?
The NPA appears to try and indemnify Epstein and both known and unknown co-conspirators (Ghislaine Maxwell?) in both the offenses
prosecuted and any other offenses subject to the joint USAO/FBI investigation . In fact on page 5 the indemnity given uses
the wording "the [US] also agrees it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators
of Epstein included but not limited to.." (my emphasis) i.e. scope here appears to be unlimited. This cannot be legally enforceable
surely?
I thought NPA's were used to go after people further up the food chain. This one seems to have given carte blanche immunity
to all involved at every level. I'm astonished Acosta had the authority, merely with "consultation" within DOJ to do this. This
is a travesty and is starting to make FISA abuse look like chicken feed.
Epstein's NPA was limited to the Florida district of federal courts, hence another branch of the federal courts, the Southern
District of New York, was free to re-open the issue..and did.
Acosta says he acted in accordance with his superior's wishes at the DOJ. Plausible, but lets see some corroborating evidence.
If he agreed to negotiate this NPA without getting his boss's orders in writing he is a remarkable fool.
Was Acosta making an "error"? Looks to me he was a fully paid up member of the Swamp, doing what swampians do and he will no doubt
settle back into a Swamp law firm or Professorship somewhere. Weep not for him.
Arkancide? Epstein is linked with E Barak, and Nicole Junkermann, per flight logs. Presumably that is the intelligence link
Acosta was babbling about. https://carbyne911.com/team/
yes. I con't see him living much longer. On Morning joe today, Joe and his imbecile consort went on at length about a party
in 1992 at Mar A Lago for a bunch of NFL cheerleaders. Trump, Epstein and other me stood around ogling the ladies. So what! Not
a word was said about the absent Bill Clinton.
Doubt if Bubba Bill was involved in any of Epstein's sexual shenanigans after being burnt by Lewinsky. Clinton always had
the proverbial ability to "talk a dog off a gut wagon" and could most likely find an agreeable partner elsewhere. Might be wrong
but doubt it.
Ogling NFL cheerleaders, big deal. That seemed pretty normal to me. I'm waiting for more to come out about the 1992 private party
at Mar a Lago with Trump, Epstein and 28 calendar girls. I get the feeling Trump is going tweet crazy right now primarily to change
the subject. With Trump, Clinton, the DOJ enablers who protected Epstein and probably a host of others, Epstein is bound to be
whacked as you and walrus said.
Yes, the MSM are predictably silent about Bill Clinton and other leftists who are/were buddies with Epstein. I guess with all
of his money, he could murder someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and...
If I understand correctly, Epstein broke the agreement. Would it follow that the WTF!? immunity deal is now nixed?
What a rotten underbelly oozes out. This foul beast needs to be wrestled into the light. Where is the people's champion?
There must be some good people in there somewhere.
The sweetheart deal that Epstein received from Acosta and the DOJ seems rather unusual for the felony that is such a social
taboo as you note. Not only did he get off extremely lightly but his co-conspirators were completely let off the hook. The way
the children who were raped were also treated by the courts was also shameful.
This case epitomizes the travesty of the current state of the rule of law. Sexual predators of children are typically thrown
the book and quickly taken off the streets to serve a long sentence. Not only did that not happen but even worse he was allowed
to continue his despicable behavior out in the open even when he was supposed to be serving his sentence. Clearly he had some
powerful friends in the Bush administration, but even with these connections when such execrable behavior is shown repeatedly
there were none with a conscience. A sad testament to the state of our justice system.
Do you think the current case will also just be another white wash or do you think the DOJ will pursue the investigation with
vigor to get to the bottom of his finances and all the other sexual predators of children in his orbit?
You are perceptive about the Epstein plea bargain / non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The one for Epstein is the complete opposite
of what happens in federal criminal cases. Yes, agreements between the Justice Department and defendants are often used "to go
after people further up the food chain". There will be a plea bargain with a cooperation section in it. If cooperation is not
part of the arrangement, that section is left out.
They have a standard form they use for plea bargains, and some sections may be in or out of it depending on the situation.
Classic examples are those that were used by "special counsel" Robert Mueller when he went around putting the squeeze on people.
Here is the agreement between the Mueller group and Richard Gates, who was around Paul Manafort during the Trump campaign--
The usual plea agreement requires the defendant to plead guilty to some federal criminal offense. The Epstein agreement
did not require him to plead to a federal crime. It also did not require him to debrief or provide them with information. To the
contrary, it required that the federal government do nothing to him or to other people who helped him or conspired with him to
commit federal crimes!
I'm not a Trump supporter, but you have to say this for Trump: he banned Jeffery Epstein from his properties and made him PNG
when Trump had complaints about the man's conduct on site.
"The Epstein story touches everywhere, discredits American justice, American media, reaches into the White House, perhaps through
numerous occupants and eventually settles in, a continuing mystery, still protected by a controlled media as it leads us to not
one but 20 billionaires, a secret society tied to Epstein, that represents the power of Israel over the governments of the US,
Britain and Canada."
"What is the real story? First of all, sex with children is nothing new in America. Child sex was the norm when the Pilgrims
landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620 and little changed other than it becoming a convenient tool to smear political opponents.
For two centuries, girls as young as 12 were regularly married off, sometimes forcibly, to men as old as 70 while others were
sold into slavery to work in the mills or join the endless hordes serving in America's brothels."
By throwing millions of dollars at the legal system, Epstein successfully enlisted Alex
Acosta, a sitting U.S. Attorney who just resigned as Trump's Labor Secretary, to grant the
admitted sex offender a non-prosecution and an immunity agreement.
That deal, that a federal judge has since ruled illegal, helped conceal a vast child-sex
trafficking operation that targeted vulnerable minors by offering them $300 and then employed a
kind of pyramid scheme where victims were recruited to find new victims.
For decades now, as a general assignment reporter, I have had front row seats for a
procession of these kinds of defendants. I have seen the likes of Epstein before.
Over my life as a journalist, as the whirlwind of wealth concentration stripped so many
threadbare, these guys have prospered on an unprecedented scale. In our era of late-stage
vulture-capitalism, it is these most ruthless predators that are elevated before their fall by
our corporate media as living deities.
Rogues Rushmore
The elevation of Donald Trump to the Presidency marks the high-water mark for this
underworld crew who masterfully play the compliant corporate media that's transfixed by great
wealth and confer upon those that hold it all sorts of intellectual prowess so as to cultivate
proximity to them.
As we saw in the Federal prosecution and conviction of
Michael Cohen for his role in facilitating the payoff of Stormy Daniels, Trump knows
everybody has a price.
These great white men are their own law. They see themselves as the smartest guys in the
room. They have the cunning to know how to hollow out others so that they can own their souls.
With the precision of an acupuncturist, they pinpoint that pressure point that's the nexus of
desire, sexual pleasure or ambition.
These must be done with sleight of hand but even if you are caught red-handed, as long as
you have high priced representation on retainer, you can outmaneuver
prosecutors.
Weaponized Sex
Charles Kushner, the father of Jared Kushner, President Trump's senior advisor, is another
case in point.
Kushner, the real estate mogul and major Democratic campaign donor, was appointed by
Governor McGreevey to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 2002 and was nominated
by the Governor to be the chairman of the board of the sprawling bi-state multi-billion-dollar
enterprise in 2003.
McGreevey had to withdraw that nomination and
Kushner had to resign when allegations surfaced that the developer's massive donations to
his campaign might have run afoul of campaign finance and conflict of interest laws.
The year before Kushner's appointment, while on a trip to Israel, McGreevey crossed paths
with Golan Cipel, who was in his early 30s. Subsequent press reports boiled down the young
Israeli's bio to his being a former member of the Israeli Navy and a published poet.
In 2002, it was
Kushner who sponsored Cipel, for a hard to obtain work visa in the U.S. and gave him a
$30,000-a-year job in his northern New Jersey office after Cipel had worked on the McGreevey
campaign.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, Cipel was nominated by McGreevey to a
$110,000 job to lead the state's freshly minted Homeland Security office. Cipel's status as an
Israeli citizen and his lack of executive-level counter-terrorism experience sent up multiple
flares which McGreevey ignored.
The young Governor doubled down, as he blew through his very limited 'honeymoon' political
capital trying to make the appointment stick. But the Governor's wild overstatement of Cipel's
work experience doomed the pick and Cipel handed in his resignation in March of 2002. Yet, he
was kept on at the same salary as a "policy counselor" a position he would resign from a few
months later.
In August of 2004
McGreevey resigned from office disclosing that he was "a gay American", explaining he was
compelled to make the bombshell disclosure because Cipel, with whom he had an affair, was
threatening to sue him unless he was paid $5 million (McGreevey reportedly called the U.S.
Attorney Chris Christie to report the alleged extortion).
But as Cipel tells it on his own website he was the victim of sexual harassment.
"All those things that I rationalized to myself seemed very logical at the time, but the sad
truth is that I was acting out of confusion and fear," Cipel writes. "Like many other victims
of sexual harassment, I chose to deny what had happened."
The Art of the Deal
In August of 2004 the elder Kushner, a towering figure in both American and Israeli politics
and philanthropy, pled guilty to a long list of corruption charges that could have sent him to
jail for many years if he had been your run of the mill federal defendant of color in a drug
conspiracy case.
Kushner admitted to hiring a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, who was working with
federal investigators against him, then videotaping that sexual rendezvous and sending it to
his brother-in-law's spouse, who was Kushner's sister.
But Kushner and his lawyers would ultimately outmaneuver U.S. Attorney
Chris Christie , whose major vulnerability was his own infinite ambition for power as we
saw with Bridgegate. The night before Kushner was supposed to be in court to plead guilty, the
U.S. Attorney leaked the still un-inked deal to reporters.
But as the media waited in Newark the next day for the official deal to be confirmed in the
federal courtroom, the appointed time came and went. Behind the scenes, Kushner's lawyers and
Christie's team were going back and forth over the terms and conditions of the deal.
By the end of the day, Kushner would enter a guilty plea as advertised, but he made no
commitment to cooperate with the government or to offer up any potential co-conspirators.
According to the Department of Justice's press release, Kushner pleaded guilty to 18 counts of
filing false tax returns, one count of retaliating against a cooperating witness and one count
of making false statements to the Federal Election Commission.
By the evening news cycle, the morning's news of a plea deal was finally true, and Christie
could bask in the glory. "This is a great victory for the people of New Jersey," said the
federal prosecutor who would soon run for governor. "No matter how rich and powerful any person
may be, they will be held accountable for criminal conduct by this office."
Each of Kushner's 18 tax counts carried a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a
fine of $100,000, according to the DOJ; the witness retaliation count carried a maximum penalty
of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000; and the
false statement charge provided for a maximum prison term of five years and a fine of
$250,000.
Scroll forward to March of 2005, though, and Kushner was sentenced to just two years --
which,
The New York Times reported at the time, was the most he "could have received under a plea
agreement reached last September," with Christie.
It was clear that Christie's office had been out-lawyered by the Kushner team. And the
Christie-approved leak -- before he had closed the deal -- definitely hadn't helped. Before
sentencing, the Department of Justice wrote a letter to the judge observing that, in the final
analysis, Kushner showed a "failure to
accept responsibility" for a long litany of criminal acts that could have landed him in
federal prison for decades."
Without a truly thorough prosecution, the House of Kushner would endure and prosper and
Kushner would see his son go on to greater things sitting in the star chamber of ultimate power
deciding who the U.S. should bomb or sell weapons to.
Equal Justice Not
Our collective attention span is so short and the non-contextual way the news is reported
assures we lose track of the narrative thread so when types like Epstein and Kushner cut their
deals we miss it.
Without the candle power of the Miami Herald 's probe
of the Epstein plea deal, we remain in the dark about how every day great wealth can insulate
the guilty, no matter heinous their crime, from really being held accountable.
Meanwhile, those without means, who are innocent, are chewed up and spit out by a criminal
justice system that is neither blind nor fair.
"We have a system of justice in this country that treats you much better if you're rich and
guilty than if you're poor and innocent," said civil rights attorney
Bryan Stevenson in his TED Talk. "Wealth, not culpability, shapes outcomes. And yet, we
seem to be very comfortable. The politics of fear and anger have made us believe that these are
problems that are not our problems."
"... Mueller's deceptive edits beg the question; what else may have been manipulated by the special counsel to make Trump look guilty? ..."
"... When reached for comment by attorney 'Techno Fog' (@Techno_Fog), Dowd said of the edits: " It is unfair and despicable. It was a friendly privileged call between counsel - with NO conflict. I think Flynn got screwed." ..."
"... Flynn pleaded guilty last year to lying to the FBI about contacts with Russians and is currently awaiting sentencing. ..."
"... Time to lock up that big nosed sneaky ******* *** bastard Andrew Weissmann ..."
"... They were all hired under the supervision of another sneaky *** ****, "No" Rod Rosenstein...who was behind him pulling the strings, who's business was he really doing ? It sure was not the interests of Justice, nor the good of the US. ..."
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) on Saturday called for the immediate release of "all backup and source information" for the Mueller report
after internet sleuth @almostjingo (Rosie Memos) discovered that the
special counsel's office deceptively edited content which was then cited as evidence of possible obstruction.
" It's all a fraud " tweeted Nunes, replying to a tweet by @JohnWHuber (Undercover Huber), who also posted a comparison between
the Mueller report and a newly released transcript of a November 2017 voicemail message left by former Trump lawyer John Dowd, in
which he asked former national security adviser Michael Flynn's attorney for a "heads up" if Flynn was planning on saying anything
that might damage the president.
Mueller's team omitted key context suggesting that Dowd was trying to strongarm Flynn and possibly obstruct justice by shaping
witness testimony, while the actual voicemail reveals that Dowd was careful not to tread into obstruction territory in what was
a friendly and routine call between lawyers.
Dowd qualifies his request by saying " without you having to give up any...confidential information " in order to determine "If,
on the other hand, we have, there's information that...implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe
a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President but for the country
."
Once again # MuellerReport edited messages
to make them appear more damaging, full transcript of this phone call reveals Dowd's message was pretty typical for a lawyer
and he clearly states he's not interested in any confidential info. What else did they manipulate
Mueller's deceptive edits beg the question; what else may have been manipulated by the special counsel to make Trump look
guilty?
When reached for comment by attorney 'Techno Fog' (@Techno_Fog), Dowd said of the edits: " It is unfair and despicable. It
was a friendly privileged call between counsel - with NO conflict. I think Flynn got screwed."
Dowd told
Fox News : "During the joint defense relationship, counsel for the president provided to Flynn's counsel documents, advice and
encouragement to provide to SC [the special counsel] as part of his effort to cooperate with the SC," adding " SC never raised or
questioned the president's counsel about these allegations despite numerous opportunities to do so. "
Flynn pleaded guilty last year to lying to the FBI about contacts with Russians and is currently awaiting sentencing.
DOJ stonewalls on Flynn evidence
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has resisted a court order to release the transcripts of Flynn's conversations with Russian
officials , including former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
This raises at least two questions. First, did the DOJ give Flynn the transcripts? And second, did the DOJ violate a previous
court order from Judge Emmett Sullivan to produce evidence during discovery?
Note - per competing Orders, still not certain if Judge Sullivan will require all audio recording transcripts be filed with
court. DOJ seems to read the orders that he doesn't need them. https:// twitter.com/Techno_Fog/sta
tus/1129416066382336000
Note that the 5/16 Order required the production of "the transcripts of any other audio recordings of Mr. Flynn, including,
but not limited to, audio recordings of Mr. Flynn's conversations with Russian officials"
Compliance may be an issue. Awaiting Judge response...
Could there be exculpatory evidence in the transcript that Flynn's team never received?
Law Crime
GoldRulesPaperDrools , 4 minutes ago
Mueller was a dirty cop back from his days in Boston dealing with Whitey Bulger. Like most gubmint employees he can't be
fired when he ***** up (especially if they're a minority or if they get high up in the management pyramid). He should have been
fired from the FBI and probably indicted long before he left Boston.
Add to the fact that he's personal friends with Cankles Clinton's personal legal snowplow James Comey who got her off in
the New Square Four issue up in NY and you have a dishonest and biased party. Trump was the only one who called these fucktards
on their past. Even the rhinos were quiet and gave Mueller props. He and Comey should be looking at a date with a firing squad
along with ex-president Smirking Chimp and several of his leftist cronies.
Pinefox , 8 minutes ago
Let's hope their are some brilliant technologically savvy patriotic citizens who can unearth the corrupt manipulation of
evidence and display it to the American people.
Joebloinvestor , 9 minutes ago
Looks like Flynn got railroaded and he willingly took the trip.
pissed off american , 13 minutes ago
lisa barsoomian used to an ACTIVE undercover CIA agent/NWO lawyer and rod rosenstein wife
blindfaith , 14 minutes ago
Imagine my surprise. What else would 18 radical pro liberal Democrat lawyers do to?
Criminal behavior overdue for prosecution and prison terms, and forfeiture of assets. You know like happens to regular folks.
JD59 , 16 minutes ago
Of course it is "ALL A FRAUD" it is called a COUP, by the DEMOCRAT PARTY AND OBAMA!
It was treason and sedition. The good news is, they will never be held accountable because there is no unbiased justice system.
Just controlled chaos. /sarc
Teamtc321 , 16 minutes ago
Mueller and Clan forged 302's to charge Mike Flynn with a process Crime, FACT. Period. End of Story.
Listen to this from Dan Bongino from December, follow the proof he speaks of that is coming out as fact now. This is the
real Story and it's factual.
Ep. 865 Mike Flynn Was Set Up! The Dan Bongino Show 12/5/2018.
Long, but if you really want to understand how Flynn was set up in a perjury trap, how they did it and then charged
him with a process crime.
It's right there and proven factual. Period.
Teamtc321 , 14 minutes ago
Mike Flynn needs to be exonerated, Now. That is a long podcast from Dan Bongino but it is Factual. Not bull ****.
Flynn was set up with Fake 302's, Period.
iSage , 10 minutes ago
Well, they asked him a question and he got the answer wrong in an interview, I say he committed no crime, except to misspeak
in a FBI interview.
Hardly treason, or anything other than a memory lapse. Try remembering all your phone call details from 2 years ago?
Teamtc321 , 2 minutes ago
The written notes from the interview, the 302's were dated 6 months after the actual interview also. Bongino not only laid
it out, had the doc's to show it.............
Flynn was not only set up, he got rail roaded with the full weight and force of the Mueller Investigation.
They basically broke Flynn trying to defend himself. He lost everything trying to finance the battle.
Non-Corporate Entity , 16 minutes ago
hahahha!!!! Mueller is used to having people in place to overlook his deceptions but now they've been replaced by Americans
LOOKING for his deceptions.
St. TwinkleToes , 17 minutes ago
Note to Self:
The US Government, every local and state official, everyone working in academia, all public service employees, military command,
and all 70 plus unions representing the entertainment industry and those they employ, are your enemy. Avoid these subhuman pos
with all possible means. They are cancers of civilization, a curse upon mankind. Zombies, the walking dead.
Abaco , 20 minutes ago
The first question that should be asked is why the hell is anyone still working at DOJ who is stonewalling the courts and/or
the Attorney General. Doing so is a fireable offense and any money spent walking these schmucks through the paperwork and out
the door is well worth it. In the meantime they should be order to report to the DOJ branch office in Somalia.
Of course Mueller's team unlawfully withheld discovery evidence and of course they falsified evidence. That ******** Weissman
has a track record of doing just that. The fact that the stupid prick still has a law license is evidence enough that the entire
federal "justice" system is completely corrupt.
Robert of Ottawa , 18 minutes ago
Quite so Abaco, this is Mueller's modus operandum
johngaltfla , 24 minutes ago
Mueller is a partisan hack who is used as a hit man by the Beltway elites to attack and destroy innocent people. His track
record is an abomination and this is just anther verification of how corrupt this son of a bitch really is.
artvandalai , 25 minutes ago
I suppose somebody could still say that there is no Deep State. But nobody nowhere can say that this kind of thing isn't
what Deep Staters would do if they existed.
Harry Lightning , 27 minutes ago
Time to lock up that big nosed sneaky ******* *** bastard Andrew Weissmann. He looks like the kind of prick who
will spill his guts once threatened with a prison sentence, because he and everyone on the planet knows he would not last one
day in the joint.
Once they get him to squeal, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down on that treasonous ********** Mueller. Let's see
how tough he really is when the heat is on him for a change. My bet is he wilts like a flower in the summer heat.
They were all hired under the supervision of another sneaky *** ****, "No" Rod Rosenstein...who was behind him pulling
the strings, who's business was he really doing ? It sure was not the interests of Justice, nor the good of the US.
Only when this onion is peeled layer by l;ayer will the countrey find out who truly was responsible for this hit job on the
President, and Trump should use every available means at his disposal as President to get to the bottom of this horseshit.
Abaco , 17 minutes ago
Weissmann, Rosenstein and Mueller, at the very least should each be hanging, todya, half from the Cabin John Bridge
and half from the Woodrow Wilson bridge.
Teamtc321 , 21 minutes ago
Obama Spy Gate is unfolding...
btrp , 28 minutes ago
Mueller picked 16 democrat lawyers for his special counselors office. I'm sure those weasly wittle democrats didn't edit
those transcripts.
turkey george palmer , 29 minutes ago
Seems like they want the country to go lawless. Who would.want.tge United States to go down like that.
Britain is the culprit ultimately. Well besides the little ticks with all the money
MalteseFalcon , 32 minutes ago
The FISA system invites abuse. Get rid of it. In fact jettison all post 9/11 security constructs.
iSage , 16 minutes ago
Get rid of Patriot and NDA Acts, as a start! There are plenty more to repeal too!
Teamtc321 , 34 minutes ago
Obama Spied..............
Seth Rich Died...........
While you ******* Crooked Libtards Screech Impeach.................
Teamtc321 , 35 minutes ago
The Rats are being rolled out as the Treasonous Scum they are. Obama Spy-Gate is showing it's face..........
Flynn was set up in a Perjury Trap to get a shitty process crime charge......... Mueller is a Dirty MFER................
Mike Flynn need to be Exonerated, NOW !!!!!!
========================
Former Deputy Assistant AG Toensing: There Is Evidence Obama Administration FISA Abuse Started As Early As 2012 (VIdeo)
On Friday night Sean Hannity invited several expert sources on the Deep State spying scandal to discuss the latest developments
in the government spying on the Trump campaign, Trump Transition team and Trump administration.
With such overwhelming evidence of DOJ, FBI and IC / proprietorial fraud, if there are is no "real" investigation - which
should be a mere formality - to confirm severe malfeasance, and worse, followed up by prosecution and punishment, then I'm staying
the **** home next elections ... totally sick of this ******* two-tiered ****.
So Strzok worked with Mueller in Boston. Really close circle of friends.
Notable quotes:
"... In December 2000, Durham revealed secret FBI documents that convinced a judge to vacate the 1968 murder convictions of "four other FBI informants because they'd been framed by Robert Mueller's FBI. ..."
"... "In 2007," to help protect Whitey Bulger (that's what all those people were held in jail for) "the documents helped Salvati, Limone, and the families of the two other men who had died in prison to win a US $101.7 million civil judgment against the government." ..."
"... Durham got the two surviving framed men released from prison. Robert Mueller was knee-deep in this scandal, along with Andrew Weissman and the agent sent to prison, but because Reno gave him very limited authority, Durham was not able to prosecute Mueller, who was not in the FBI at the time. ..."
"... Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, calling Mueller a "zealot," he reminded Mueller supporters about the former FBI director's role in protecting "notorious mass murderer" Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant. ..."
"... There is also the fact that Rod Rosenstein seems to think well of him. ..."
"... You can be sure there are a lot of people losing sleep knowing Durham is on the case. You might have noticed Rod Rosenstein, the former Deputy Attorney General, is out trashing Jim Comey. ..."
"... Strzok was in the Boston FBI office at the same time. ..."
"... Mueller was the perfect choice for special prosecutor because they have so much dirt on him he'll do whatever they tell him to do. Modus Operandi in DC for many many decades. ..."
Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham was appointed to investigate the origins of the Russia-Trump probe. Apparently, he has been
on the job for weeks.
Durham is the perfect investigator for the job by all accounts and he had experience with Robert Mueller in the Whitey Bulger
case. He did not side with Mueller and Mueller's agents suffered the consequences of Mueller's, some would say, corrupt leadership.
THE WHITEY BULGER CASE
Back in the late 1990s, there were "allegations that FBI informants James 'Whitey' Bulger and Stephen 'The Rifleman' Flemmi had
corrupted their handlers. So, in 1999, Janet Reno appointed John Durham as Special Prosecutor and charged him with investigating FBI corruption in Boston.
As it turned out, FBI agents aided mass murderer, Whitey Bulger and hid his crimes. Bulger was a protected informant. Durham sent one agent involved to prison for 10 years.
Then-US Attorney, Robert Mueller is probably the one who should have landed in the pen. He allowed four innocent men to be sent
to prison for a murder he knew they didn't commit. He did it to protect Bulger. One of the four men was in Florida at the time of the murder and could not have committed the murder.
When Durham went through the documents. He found that the four men,
Enrico Tameleo ,
Joseph Salvati ,
Peter J. Limone ,
and Louis Greco, had actually been framed. Four people who were innocent were kept in jail for years in order to protect the status of Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant.
"[Mike] Albano [former Parole Board Member who was threatened by two F.B.I. agents for considering parole for the men imprisoned
for a crime they did not commit] was appalled that, later that same year, Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller,
first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting U.S. attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board
throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies. Of course, Mueller was also in that position while
Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset
"
In December 2000, Durham revealed secret FBI documents that convinced a judge to vacate the 1968 murder convictions of "four other
FBI informants because they'd been framed by Robert Mueller's FBI.
"In 2007," to help protect Whitey Bulger (that's what all those people were held in jail for) "the documents helped Salvati, Limone,
and the families of the two other men who had died in prison to win a US $101.7 million civil judgment against the government."
Durham got the two surviving framed men released from prison. Robert Mueller was knee-deep in this scandal, along with Andrew Weissman and the agent sent to prison, but because Reno gave him
very limited authority, Durham was not able to prosecute Mueller, who was not in the FBI at the time.
Mueller kept four innocent people in jail for years to protect the informant status of Whitey Bulger, a mass-murdering Boston
mobster who ended up dying in California, and it ended up costing the government $100 million plus in civil judgments.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ CALLED MUELLER A "ZEALOT"
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, calling Mueller a "zealot," he
reminded
Mueller supporters about the former FBI director's role in protecting "notorious mass murderer" Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant.
"I think Mueller is a zealot," Dershowitz told
"The Cats Roundtable" on 970 AM-N.Y.
". . . I don't think he cares whether he hurts Democrats or Republicans, but he's a partisan and zealot.
"He's the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an FBI
informer. Those of us in Boston don't have such high regard for Mueller because we remember this story. The government had to
pay out tens of millions of dollars because Whitey Bulger, a notorious mass murderer, became a government informer against the
mafia . . .
"And that's regarded in Boston of one of the great scandals of modern judicial
history
. And Mueller was right at the center of it. So, he is not without criticism by people who know him in Boston."
HOW DID MUELLER BECOME THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR?
There were other cases in which Mueller behaved scandalously,
here and here . Former U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Sydney Powell tells the same story. She
calls them creeps on a mission and has a website of the same name detailing the offenses of Mueller and Weissman.
How did Robert Mueller end up as the Special Prosecutor? Thank a Democrat. The Democrats insisted he was a great man of inviolable
character. They said he was the impeccable man and investigator.
There is also the fact that Rod Rosenstein seems to think well of him.
You can be sure there are a lot of people losing sleep knowing Durham is on the case. You might have noticed Rod Rosenstein, the
former Deputy Attorney General, is out trashing Jim Comey.
For his part, Jim Comey hasn't written anything inspirational or anti-Trump on Twitter for four days. He has been giving a lot
of public speeches lately. Maybe he should shut up.
Strzok was in the Boston FBI office at the same time. The entire FBI is crooked. They supposedly couldn't find Bulger for years.
Then the case was going to be turned over to the US Marshal Service. And what do you know, someone in Greenland or Iceland called
the FBI with a tip that Bulger was in California. And just like that the FBI goes and picks him up with less force than they used
to pick up Roger Stone. The FBI is dirty. Every single one of them.
Mueller was the perfect choice for special prosecutor because they have so much dirt on him he'll do whatever they tell him
to do. Modus Operandi in DC for many many decades.
What about the frame up of Edgar J Steele ? Another victim of a corrupt FBI investigation and a corrupt jewdiciary.
I used to find Edgar's "nickle rants" entertaining. What happened to him gave me the biggest red pill of my life.
"Whenever you find something foul, when you peel back the layers; more often than not you find the same maggots underneath
it all." Please forgive my quote may not be precise as I don't have my copy of Song of the Reich handy. I think you get the point
though.
Not for me. I simply assume government is corrupt beyond our wildest dreams. Remember the story of the Dutch banker who escaped
the Illuminati and his story of laundering proceeds from Iranian oil sales when Iran was, once again, under sanctions in former
years? That trucks and trucks pulled up to these German banks loaded with USD. His job was to make sure that money continued its
journey...but not in a truck.
But I'm with Team. What the **** did I just read? This is like being in a small town and learning yet another tidbit in a scandelous
affair. Soap opera-ville. Like, dude! What's goin' happen next?
Mueller appears to have been dirty for some time now. This speaks to the extent of the swamp more than anything else. Mueller
is careful enough to not break criminal law so all he'll ever suffer is criticism for loading up his team with Trump haters. None
of these people will go down for anything unless Weissman is tagged with withholding exculpatory evidence, again.
How do you cost your employer 100 million and still have a job? This is why I don't believe anything. If this true, then our
country is really in bad shape. No American would do this.
There were so many "real dirty birds", but I'd add Hilliary, Holder, Lynch, and Clapper to round out the high-profile list.
As an ex-President and the first "magic" one I expect Obama to get a pass.
Hey fellas, gee wiz. Turns out those guys we gave special rights, special power, specials guns, and special equipment too actually
hurt people with them. Who'd'a thunk?
"As it turned out, FBI agents aided mass murderer, Whitey Bulger and hid his crimes"
Over the past two years, I have heard Sean Hannity bad mouth the upper echelons of the FBI. He consistently goes on to grovel
and talk about the thousands of agents in local offices who are hard working agents doing a great job. I always though his ***
kissing was to good to be true. Now I read just how corrupt local agents are, willing to send innocent people to jail to protect
some dirt bag.
I've come to the conclusion that the FBI is full of dirty agents from top to bottom. Time to abolish the FBI.
Every government agency is. Thats the nature of it. Power corrupts. You think you can create an agency of human beings, give
them special powers, special rights, special guns, special equipment, turn them loose on society and think they are not going
to dry **** everybody who gets in their way?
The FBI (originally the BI) was first headed by Napoleon Bonaparte's grand nephew, a family not noted for republican sentiments.
It was set up as a political police to persecute communists. Fair enough! But as Ward Churchill in his book by the same name calls
the FBI, they are Agents of Repression . It could be communists one decade, conservatives the next, libertarians after
that.
The FBI's reputation as an investigative body is very poor. Its crime lab has made hideous blunders. Its fingerprint section
accused a man in Spain of finding his fingerprints on a bomb until other international fingerprint experts proved that the fingerprints
definitely were not those of the man the FBI accused. Local and state police throughout the US universally loathe FBI interference
with their cases because all the FBI does is interfere with their investigations and do it only so it (the FBI) can grandstand.
It's investigation of the false flag 9-11event was a cover-up, as was its investigation of the false flag Boston Marathon "bombing".
Two of the three "suspects" were shot to death by the FBI and the third is in prison for life for something he didn't even do.
How much did Whitey Bulger give Mueller to earn protection? Therein lies the most critical issue of all. 'How much' could be
how many mafia members the FBI brought down because of Bulger. It could also be how much Mueller benefited in other ways. Payoffs,
anyone?
However, there may be another benefit. What did Bulger know about Mueller? To be black-mailable over many years, and to be
truly effective, it must be devastating and run both ways--let's call it mutually assured blackmail.
It purports to be fiction, but DC, the Dark City is the inside story of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's
a horror story and an eye-opener, politics viewed from inside the establishment.
insanelysane
The Bulger thing gets really interesting because Bulger's brother was the President of the Massachusetts Senate during the
same time. Billy Bulger was a big time Democrat in Massachusetts, shocking of course. So you have 1 brother running the mob and
the other brother, well, running a mob at the State House.
One story, link below, has an honest State Trooper try to search Whitey's bags at Logan Airport. Whitey throws a bag to a lackey
and the lackey disappears. Trooper reports the incident and guess what happens. Trooper is reassigned to hell for interfering
with the Brothers Bulger and the FBI.
Both The Hill and CNN are now reporting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is interrogating
at least eight of my current and former associates and is asking questions about my personal
life, my political activities, my pro-Trump activism, my book sales, my personal business and
even my family relationships. Wait! I thought this was about Russian Collusion, WikiLeaks and
the bogus claim that I had advance notice of the content, source and exact release date of the
DNC emails which so rocked the 2016 Presidential race?
That the Special Counsel is now examining the minute details of my personal finances and
taxes according to The Hill and CNN proves precisely my point; this is not about Russian
Collusion or misdeeds in 2016, this is about fabricating any infraction in order to indict,
silence and punish me for my support for Donald Trump.
This comes on the heels of a fake news assault in which the Wall Street Journal's Shelby
Holliday took exculpatory e-mail I provided her that fell outside the precisely worded scope of
the House Intelligence Committee document request which confirms my claim that I never dealt
directly with WikiLeaks or Assange but had a back-channel. My September request that this
source find out if WikiLeaks had any information on the murder of Qadaffi is a legitimate
journalist inquiry that the WSJ tries to make seem improper in some way.
Adam Schiff's claim that I was obligated to turn this e-mail exchange over to the House
Intel Committee and did not is false and if he could take a five-minute break from the
television cameras he could read the wording of the Committee document request and would know
this. This Shelby Holliday is the epitome of Fake News.
Having come up empty-handed in their attempt to find evidence or proof of Russian Collusion,
trafficking in allegedly hacked emails with WikiLeaks or any advance notice of the publication
of John Podesta's emails, the Special Counsel is now clearly engaged in an effort to conjure up
some other offense perhaps even mischaracterizing independent efforts that I took to
successfully elect Donald Trump, at the same time sifting through my financial records, bank
accounts and personal and family life.
I am mindful of the Alan Dershowitz claim that the average American inadvertently commits at
least three felonies a day and I am facing an ad hoc federal prosecutorial juggernaut, with an
unlimited budget and apparently no effective limitations on anything it does nor any subject
matter or area of inquiry that it has not been broadly-empowered to aggressively scrutinizing,
picking and probing through every molecule of my personal and professional life, deploying
federal agents to conduct fine tooth microscopic review of my political and personal
activities. Including badgering at least eight of my current or former associates.
I recognized Mr. Mueller could indict a ham sandwich but I'm not interested in being his
lunch.
I recognized that this partisan witch hunt is very much driven by this fake news media
outlets like MSNBC, CNBC, Huff Po, Slate, Salon, Vice, The Daily Beast and the despicable Raw
Story engaged in a constant drum beat of misinformation in a relentless attempt to contradict
what Anderson Cooper called "total consistency" in my claims about WikiLeaks and the 2016
election. These people scream for my blood on a daily basis. Now I know how the Christians felt
in the Roman Coliseum when the crowd called for them to be fed to the lions.
In addition to badgering my associates about my finances they also seem focused on the most
intimate aspects of my personal life, my business and personal relationships. Private detective
services have confirmed that my cell phone and text messages are under surveillance and access
to my email was obtained through an illegal FISA warrant that the New York Times reported I was
subject to on January 20th of 2017. Surveillance without probable cause, hoping an offense can
be confected.
The agenda of the Mueller inquisition is clear. It is to silence me as a critic of the
partisan nature of their inquiry and the Gestapo tactics that they employ as well as their
efforts to bankrupt me and punish me solely for the act of being for Donald Trump. It is also
to issue a report that will serve for the basis for an impeachment drive in the increasingly
unlikely event that the rabidly Democratic captures control of The House. The President must
wake up to the true nature of the Mueller juggernaut which has been aided and abetted by the de
facto Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The President's enemies' enmity towards him is rank and
their resolve to remove him should not be underestimated.
Politico has introduced a new potential goal of the Mueller team, which is to threaten to
indict me unless I flip and testify against the President who has been my friend and who I have
wanted to run for President for nearly thirty years. Although the New York Times has reported
that President Trump is "afraid" of me, he has nothing to fear as I am his most loyal and
steadfast supporter.
The solution to our two-tiered justice system? More tiers!
span y gjohnsit on Fri, 04/26/2019 - 6:16pm Edward Snowden made an
observation about the Mueller Report that virtually everyone else on Earth missed.
As Motherboard reported last week, the Department of Justice says that it isn't positive that
Assange helped whistleblower Chelsea Manning crack a password hash in order to obtain cables
related to the Iraq War, but that he's being charged with that crime anyway. Snowden
juxtaposed his treatment with that of Trump's treatment in Robert Mueller's report.
"Mueller says it didn't actually result in obstruction because the people that Trump
ordered to do this simply ignored him," Snowden said. "The DOJ's defense of not charging
Trump is look he tried to commit a crime but he failed to actually do this. And at the same
time they're charging Julian Assange under precisely the opposite theory. Where they say
'Look, Julian may not have actually cracked a password -- we don't have any evidence that he
did, we're not even going to try to prove that he did, we're going to say that the agreement
to try is enough."
"So this is a real question of a two-tiered system of justice. Where if you're the
president and you try to commit a crime, you can skate," he added. "Why is it that
journalists are being held to a higher standard of behavior than the president of the United
States?"
Edward Snowden cut through all the crap and got to the heart of the matter, as is usual with
him.
Only when it comes to the wealthy and/or powerful do motives matter.
A case can be made that there are already three tiers to our
justice system.
The Untouchables
These are powerful people that can simply ignore the law. They don't even have to pretend that
they hadn't broken the law.
Examples: torturers ("we tortured some folks"), murderers ("Turns out I'm really good at
killing people"), and perjurers (in the name of national security)
The Great and the Good
These are generally wealthy people that have to acknowledge that there is a law, and that law
theoretically applies to them...but not really. They often pay token fines for crimes that poor
people would get lifetime sentences.
Examples: Too Big To Prosecute bankers, any large corporation
Apparently, robbing a bank is a criminal activity depending which side of the teller's window
you are on and whether you are upper management or a $12-an-hour cashier.
So what is there to do about this?
Since none of this is by accident, there is nothing "to fix".
The justice system is working exactly as designed - to keep the workers in their place while
robbing them.
Therefore, the way to "improve" the justice system is to create even more tiers.
Our justice system should be divided by race (even more than it already is), gender, and by
subclass (for instance the middle class vs. the poor).
That way the workers will resent each other even more than now, instead of organizing against
their oppressors.
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor has a reqasonable doubt, how can he/she
bring the case before a jury which requires twelve people to not have a reasonable doubt.
And a public admission gives the defense attorney a bulldozer - "Ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, the prosecutor has expressed doubt, how can you not do the same?
span y The Liberal Moonbat on Sat, 04/27/2019 - 12:28am
One thing worth learning from Mitch McConnell: If you know what's really on the books,
there's all kind of shit you can do!
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor has a reqasonable doubt, how can
he/she bring the case before a jury which requires twelve people to not have a reasonable
doubt.
And a public admission gives the defense attorney a bulldozer - "Ladies and gentlemen of
the jury, the prosecutor has expressed doubt, how can you not do the same?
There is no distinction between criminals and the law enforcement within such a system of
elaborately organized but senseless violence, and all law is merely politics, brute force and
cruelty. We have come to the point in America in the early 21 Century where the Nihilists and
Social Revolutionaries were under the last Czars.
Revolution finally makes as much sense as social order, and doing nothing seems to be a
senseless waste of life, itself. As people of conscience, we have nothing but bad choices
available to us. Same with those who rule us.
Joe posted about how lots of blacks in NYC were arrested for being in a gang. Not that they
committed any crimes, but just because they were or might have been in a gang. Another
unjustifiable system here in this land of the free is our bail system. Can't post bail? Tuff.
You get to spend years in jail until your trial comes up.
span y The Aspie Corner on Fri, 04/26/2019 - 10:26pm
"Our country has a 'justice' system that criminalizes poverty + disproportionately targets
race, yet routinely pardons large-scale crimes of wealth and privilege.
"Moments like these tell us it's less a justice system, and more a class enforcement
system ." [My Emphasis]
Look for her and allies to resurrect FDR's mantra from 1944 as they work to enact Medicare
For All and Green New Deal: "individual freedom cannot exist without economic security."
Indeed, there're numerous slogans from the FDR era that ought to be employed as many still
aren't fulfilled.
That's the Haynes being debunked in the twitter exchange I posted above your comment.
Ducks were involved in the initial tale/yarn/fabrication, but they weren't dead.
Tweet
reply by b about Zionistan escalating situation now that elections are over:
"That feeling [invasion of Lebanon by Zionistan] isn't unreasonable. All parties in
Lebanon rejected U.S. demand to go against Hizbullah. Trump may now well give green light to
Netanyahoo and support an Israeli invasion. High possbility of extension into Syria and
beyond."
"... While debtors' prisons are officially outlawed, poor workers are routinely held for their debts. A mother in Indiana was detained for three days in February in a squalid jail alongside convicts because of an unpaid ambulance bill, which she had never received in the mail. Such stories are common. ..."
Rapes, murders, beatings, stabbings, mutilations and arson are rampant. Pleas for help, scrawled in blood, stain the walls from
prisoners held in solitary confinement. Fifteen suicides have been recorded in the last 15 months.
This is not the description of a torture chamber in el-Sisi's Egypt or Bin Salman's Saudi Arabia. Nor is it about the abuse of
detainees at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay or a CIA black site.
These are the nightmare conditions in
the Alabama state-run prison system, described in a Justice Department report released this week. They constitute a gross violation
of the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
More than 2,000 photos of abuse in one Alabama prison given to the media by the Southern Poverty Law Center in advance of the
report's release depict the gruesome reality of the conditions detailed in hundreds of interviews with prisoners and their families
conducted by federal investigators over more than two years.
While particularly horrific, such conditions are by no means unique. They are repeated in different forms in the prisons of every
state, county and city across the United States. More than 2.3 million people are packed like cattle into America's overflowing system
of state and federal prisons, local jails and immigration detention camps. Including those on probation or parole, nearly seven million
Americans are caught up in what is absurdly called the "criminal justice system."
The US accounts for more than one-quarter of the world's incarcerated population. For every 100,000 residents, there are 698 people
in detention. More than 540,000 of those held in jail on any given day have not been convicted of any crime. Many are kept in detention
simply because they are too poor pay to pay the median bail of $10,000. Another half a million, one in five inmates, are serving
long prison sentences for nonviolent drug convictions.
Researchers estimate that 61,000 prisoners are held in solitary confinement on any given day, a form of incarceration that the
UN has declared to be tantamount to torture. At least 4,000 of those held in complete isolation from the outside world suffer from
severe mental illness. Confinement to these living coffins is known to drive prisoners to suicide.
While debtors' prisons are officially outlawed, poor workers are routinely held for their debts. A mother in Indiana was
detained for three days in February in a
squalid jail alongside convicts because of an unpaid ambulance bill, which she had never received in the mail. Such stories are common.
Under the Trump administration, extending the policies developed by Obama, the federal government is waging a war on immigrants,
holding thousands of men, women and children in degrading conditions. Some 77,000 people were detained in February for seeking to
cross the southern border. Immigrant workers are being hunted down and arrested in their homes and at their work places.
The cruelty of the American government was on full display this week when 280 undocumented workers were
detained by federal agents in Allen, Texas.
It was the largest such raid in more than a decade.
Then there is the unending wave of police killings, with more than 1,000 people shot, tased or beaten to death every year on the
streets of American cities. Criminal charges for police killings are rare and convictions almost unheard of. Cops are given a green
light to kill, maim and brutalize with impunity.
With boundless hypocrisy, Democrats and Republicans proclaim their outrage over alleged human rights violations in whatever country
the American ruling class is targeting for regime change or invasion. They proclaim one of the most cruel and unequal societies in
the world, where the three richest Americans control more wealth than the bottom half of the population, to be a beacon of democracy
to the world.
If the conditions that exist in US prisons were exposed in Russia or China, there would be a hue and cry in the press and the
halls of Congress for economic sanctions and "humanitarian" military intervention that would resound in the media.
Fifty years ago, a report such as that exposing the conditions in Alabama prisons would have been met, even within sections of
the political and media establishment, with shock and demands for action, but today it passes with barely a murmur.
The Democratic Party is silent because it is complicit in the vast retrogression in conditions in US prisons. President Bill Clinton
signed the legislation that paved the way for a historic increase in the prison population. The Democrats oversee a prison system
in California that was found by the Supreme Court in 2011 to be "cruel and unusual" and in violation of the Constitution.
The upper-middle class, self-obsessed layers in and around the Democratic Party are disinterested. The promoters of the #MeToo
campaign in the media and academia have nothing to say about sexual violence in American prisons, nor about the violence inflicted
on immigrants fleeing to the United States.
The media has made as little as possible of the report, with no coverage on the major nightly news programs. As with the photos
of abuse at Abu Ghraib and the Senate report on CIA torture, there has been an effort to suppress information of what is happening
in Alabama. The New York Times and other media outlets have chosen not to publish most of the photos documenting abuse and
death.
In the end, this is their state . The conditions of American prisons, and the overall apparatus of violence, is a noxious
expression of the reality of American "democracy." The state apparatus will be utilized in the suppression of social and political
opposition to the demands of finance capital. It is the real face of American capitalism.
"If the conditions that exist in US prisons were exposed in Russia or China, there would be a hue and cry in the press and the
halls of Congress for economic sanctions and "humanitarian" military intervention that would resound in the media"
Military intervention by the US against a powerful state like Russia is impossible. Only the Germans were foolhardy enough
to invade Russia, and lost. All post-WWII US agressions, under whatever pretext, targeted Third-World countries only, unable to
strike back.
Prisons, whether run by the capitalists or the proletariat, whomever is on top, are essentially a working class institution. There
are not too many bureaucrats or members of the ruling class locked away in prisons, anywhere...perhaps unfortunately.
"The Democratic Party is silent because it is complicit in the vast retrogression in conditions in US prisons. President Bill
Clinton signed the legislation that paved the way for a historic increase in the prison population. The Democrats oversee a prison
system in California that was found by the Supreme Court in 2011 to be "cruel and unusual" and in violation of the Constitution."
Kamala Harris was a supporter of the horrendous "three strikes" law in California. So much for women in government being "kinder
and gentler". Then again, we learned of the perfidy of women in government from Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton.
This article is an important and devastating exposure of a rotten social system. Decades ago we published a series entitled "The
Brutal Society" in the pages of the "Bulletin". Earlier still, I believe, we documented the maiming and deaths of workers in the
"industrial slaughterhouse". Everything we have documented is not only true, but has intensified in the intervening years, with
the additive of the Nazi-like treatment of immigrants and their families. These outrages reveal in all their nakedness the social
relations of capitalism. Essence is appearing. Despite the confusion wrought by Democrat's promotion of identity politics, #MeToo
and the like, millions of people are re-evaluating previous conceptions. Increasingly, capitalism is becoming a dirty word, and
socialism, the hope for the future.
Prisons are an industry which profits from the misery of the indigent and the mentally ill.
"The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate
stockholders who make money off prisoners' work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand their workforce. The system feeds
itself," the prison industry is "an imitation of Nazi Germany with respect to forced slave labor and concentration camps."
In other words, US prisons are profitable concentration camps warehousing two million Americans sans the gas chambers. And
like the Nazis, the victims are carefully selected among the most marginalized by society: minorities, the indigent, the mentally
ill, the refugees, the drug addicted, etc...
In addition, statistics cite that 20% of those incarcerated are seriously mentally ill. However, I bet that percentage is considerably
greater. Prisons, have morphed into mental asylums for the poor. "In 44 states, a jail or prison holds more mentally ill individuals
than the largest remaining state psychiatric hospital; in every county in the United States with both a county jail and a county
psychiatric facility, more seriously mentally ill individuals are incarcerated than hospitalized."
In a hyper-predatory society indigence is viewed as a crime. Being POOR renders one judicially defenseless. "If you want to
stay out of prison choose rich parents. Boys from the poorest families are 20 times likelier to end up in prison than boys from
the richest families."
Only a fascist government would allow CEO's to profit from endless wars and genocide, and permit lucrative concentration camps
to warehouse its own citizenry.
The ruling class parties and the mainstream media networks that speak on their behalf are silent because they are all accomplice
in creating this barbaric justice system that normally targets the poor and working class people. So this is the outcome of a
society that has become deeply polarized in every respect.
This article by comrade Niles Niemuth on WSWS is a vindication of the fact that the US working class and its international counterpart
and youth and students in the US and across the planet need their own media organ based on Trotskysm, the Marxism today. No other
media in human world (capitalist or initiated by the pseudo left that commensurate with ISO, DSA in the US and WRP in the UK)
would be so lucid in revealing the barbarity of the capitalism/imperialism, in this case depicted by the US prison system. One
can logically conclude that in the US one has to find the planet's cruellest prison system with the knodding approval of its judiciary
due to the fact that the Material foundation of the society where the three richest men claim a wealth that is eqivalent to the
wealth of the bottom half of the population of the country. Such a disparity embeded in the material foundation of the country
in fact has to be safeguarded through a horrific anti-human legal system.
Readers of the WSWS, in my view can be proud of Niles Niemuth who contested vice presidency in the last election. Comrade Niemuth
you always live upto the expectation of the US and international working class and youth and students in the US and across the
planet.
This norm observed by you and all the revolutionaries of the ICFI is fundamental to our endeavor in dismantling capitalism/imperialism
and restructuring human society on the socialist foundation.
I know Trump is mad about the rise of socialism in the US and globally.
US capitalist/imperialist establisment has to be treated no1 enemy of the international working class and the international youth
and students. Down with US capitalism/imperialism. Victory to the revolutionary triumvirate. Thank you comrade Niles Niemuth.
In 60th a Soviet children poet Mikhalkov had published a poem about the oppression of civil right movement in USA, calling Alabama
"a feral state" for jailing children.
Now 50+ years since no much had changed.
I live in Alabama and this is an excellent analysis of conditions in the prison system here. Incarceration and police intervention
are the defacto mental health care since mental health services have long been gutted at the same time the state offers millions
upon millions in subsidies to lure already wealthy companies such as Toyota and Mercedes Benz. As this article rightly points
out, there is little difference between these conditions and those in Russian and Chinese prisons.
Frederick Douglass gave an excellent speech in 1852 called "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?", where he ruthlessly criticizes
the hypocrisy of the U.S. to proclaim its commitment to equality and freedom while simultaneously encouraging the continued enslavement
of millions of black people. If Douglass were alive today to compose the speech much of it would be the same, though it would
probably be named "What to the Prisoner is the Fourth of July" instead.
And there is an economic interest in maintaining such bonded labour, withthe incarcerated "earning' somewhere between 9 cents/hour
to about 70c per hour, depending on the state. It is a form of slavery, branded as the criminal justice system.
There's also plenty of money to be made by price-gouging prisoners when they make phone calls. Not much of the wondrous benefits
of free-market competition happening there, when you're literally a captive audience.
The Justice Department and Hillary Clinton's legal team "negotiated" an agreement that
blocked the FBI from accessing emails on Clinton's homebrew server related to the Clinton
Foundation,
according to a transcript of recently released testimony from last summer by former FBI
special agent Peter Strzok.
Crime is a legal definition. This means that to commit big crime you make it legal. Or, you
can try to enhance your commercial business or money making organization by getting conduct
made into a crime that is competition to your activity, like is found in copyright law, and is
done by state governments that make gambling illegal but have state-run lotteries in which the
odds of winning are so remote they make the negative percentage in Las Vegas casino games look
like a paragon of virtue. This also means that the concept of a crime is created by a
government, even though it is commonly thought to be bad behavior (or a failure to act), as
described by social relations, culture, religion, and human biology (with murder opposed by the
instinctive act of self defense). Conduct that is said to be bad enough is defined as a crime
and involves the government using force directly against the actor at least in the form
initially of an arrest, possible imprisonment, or later if an order from a criminal court case
is not followed.
The ongoing jabbering in the mass media -- starting in November 2016 when Donald Trump
was elected president -- declared that all sorts of conduct was illegal, as a civil or criminal
case, or should be the subject of charges for impeachment. A lot of that talk can be described
as horse manure, but it has had a real effect on the public, which effect has been and is the
intent. It reached a fever pitch last week when Judge T.S. Ellis III, an American hero, in
a federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, sentenced Paul Manafort in one of his two
criminal cases to 47 months in prison, which was noticeably below the "sentencing guidelines
range" of 235 to 293 months--
Television talkers expressed shock and dismay that Manafort received such a "low" sentence
below the guidelines and they look forward with glee to his second sentencing on 13 March,
beginning at 9:30 a.m., eastern time, in federal court in Washington DC, with Judge Amy Berman
Jackson presiding. Her rulings can be described as statistically matching to a degree those
requested by government prosecutors in cases brought by "special counsel" Robert Mueller, who
was tasked to investigate "interference" in the 2016 presidential election by the Russian
government, with attention to "collusion" by the Trump campaign, but mysteriously not involving
possible collusion with Russia by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Just as important as the definition of a crime are the rules of procedure and evidence that
govern a criminal justice system from start to finish, such as: detaining and arresting a
person, questioning a suspect, confinement or release before a trial (if any), pretrial court
hearings, a trial itself by a jury or otherwise, any appeal of a trial's verdict, ordering a
sentence of punishment or a consequence to the finding of guilt, suspending a sentence through
probation, operating a prison, the power of a president or governor to pardon a person's
conviction or commute the sentence, and so forth.
This brings us to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a deceptive name if there ever was
one. They are part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (CCCA), disguised inside
House Joint Resolution 648, "A joint resolution making continuing appropriations for the fiscal
year 1985, and for other purposes", which became Public Law 98-473 and which president Ronald
Reagan signed on 12 October 1984. That legislation shifted the existing federal criminal law so
extensively that it can accurately be described as a radical change. Whether becoming a law in
1984 was a coincidence or an arrogant expression by implementing some of the meaning in George
Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-four" (published in 1949) is not known.
The so-called guidelines came from the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, introduced by Senator
Edward Kennedy (Dem. Massachusetts), and they became part of the Comprehensive Crime Control
Act of 1984, which in turn was Title 2 of the continuing appropriations bill, Public Law
98-473. In the legislation, Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission, and it
would write the new sentencing rules, and federal judges would have to sentence someone within
the "guideline range" set by the commission. This smaller "guideline range" was within the
regular "range of punishment" set by Congress as a possible minimum to maximum sentence for
each particular crime Congress defined. Before the CCCA, if a defendant was found guilty, the
federal judge had the power and discretion to sentence the person to anything within the
regular range of punishment established by Congress, and order probation if allowed in that
instance. But the sentencing guidelines took that discretion away from the federal judge,
and required the sentence to be within the guideline range. The self-righteous language that
supposedly allowed a judge to "depart" from the guideline range in a certain way was laughable
as a practical matter.
When the sentencing guidelines became law, the sentencing commission magically was said to
become part of the judicial branch of government, where it resides today [1].
When the sentencing guidelines kicked in and became operational, a court challenge followed.
The case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, as United States v. Mistretta, 488 U.S. 361 (1989),
and even though at that time "liberals" such as Judges William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and
John Paul Stevens were on the court, the decision was 8 to 1 that the guidelines were
constitutional, with the lone dissenter being none other than Antonin Scalia [2]. Sometimes
Judge Scalia would pull back covering language about an issue and shine a light on what was
really going on. He did so at the start of his dissent--
"While the products of the Sentencing Commission's labors have been given the modest name
'Guidelines,' see 28 U.S.C. 994(a)(1) (1982 ed., Supp. IV); United States Sentencing
Commission Guidelines Manual (June 15, 1988), they have the force and effect of laws,
prescribing the sentences criminal defendants are to receive. A judge who disregards them
will be reversed, 18 U.S.C. 3742 (1982 ed., Supp. IV). I dissent from today's decision
because I can find no place within our constitutional system for an agency created by
Congress to exercise no governmental power other than the making of laws."
As some sort of smiling rationale is always given for a new law or governmental action, the
sentencing guidelines were promoted as providing certainty and fairness in sentencing and
avoiding unwarranted disparities among defendants with similar records found guilty of similar
offenses. Never mind that the differences between individual human beings, their backgrounds,
and behavior are basically unlimited and disparate in reality. The existence of reality was not
part of the new game, and "disparity" was claimed to be a bad thing. Asserted to be just as bad
was the difference between federal judges and the sentences they imposed. Surprisingly, one of
the original members of the sentencing commission, Paul Robinson, objected to what was created
as a final product, and Judge Scalia quoted him--
" ' Under the guidelines, the judge could give the same sentence for abusive sexual
contact that puts the child in fear as for unlawfully entering or remaining in the United
States. Similarly, the guidelines permit equivalent sentences for the following pairs of
offenses: drug trafficking and a violation of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act;
arson with a destructive device and failure to surrender a cancelled naturalization
certificate; operation of a common carrier under the influence of drugs that causes injury
and alteration of one motor vehicle identification number; illegal trafficking in explosives
and trespass; interference with a flight attendant and unlawful conduct relating to
contraband cigarettes; aggravated assault and smuggling $11,000 worth of fish.' Dissenting
View of Commissioner Paul H. Robinson on the Promulgation of the Sentencing Guidelines by the
United States Sentencing Commission 6-7 (May 1, 1987) (citations omitted)".
The point was and is that laws are to be made by Congress, and not from scratch by
delegating the power to a type of commission, which Judge Scalia called "a sort of
junior-varsity Congress". This context also raises thoughts about the separation of powers in
the structure of the federal government.
Sentencing in federal court became a process of assigning a certain number of points to
certain factors, and adding them up and subtracting some to reach a numerical score, and after
that looking at a grid and finding the pigeon hole telling you, and the handcuffed judge, what
the sentence within the new, smaller range of punishment could be. If you think that such a
process is surreal, it is. The sentencing scheme with its new commission became a sprawling
monster, not only in its text and procedures, but also in its expenditure of time and money and
court litigation, which continues to this day. Here is the current version of the sentencing
guidelines manual, in excess of 500 pages, which you can read if your stomach can stand
it--
After the guidelines became effective in 1987 and the Mistretta opinion was handed down in
1989, the problems generated by the new system became more and more obvious and acute. Despite
dissatisfaction expressed in the legal community, Congress did nothing, and it took 15 years
until 2004 for another case with some substance to be accepted by the Supreme Court for review,
called United States vs. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). It produced an unusual decision
consisting of two separate majority opinions, with each one made up of a different group of
five judges, and several dissenting opinions [3].
One opinion ruled that two sections of the Sentencing Reform Act that made the guidelines
mandatory had to be severed and excised from that law because a conflict existed between facts
that might be found by a jury through a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, and
what could be done under the mandatory aspects of the sentencing guidelines. Invalidating the
two sections made the guidelines effectively advisory , but the "[federal] district courts,
while not bound to apply the Guidelines, must consult those Guidelines and take them into
account when sentencing", and the "courts of appeals review sentencing decisions for
unreasonableness" (see pages 246-267, pdf pages 448-469). The supreme court did not have the
intestinal fortitude to strike down the entire sentencing guidelines regime, and instead wrote
around the problems, split hairs, and kept the system mostly in place, requiring the trial
judge to still consider the "numerous factors that guide sentencing", and a court of appeals
can review the judge's sentence and decide whether it is "unreasonable".
Judge Stephen Breyer is the author of that particular majority opinion in the Booker case
that kept the guidelines mostly in place; Supreme Court Judge John Paul Stevens wrote the other
majority opinion. One of the original members of the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 1985-1989
was a judge on the federal First Circuit Court of Appeals named Stephen Breyer, who was on that
court from 1980-1994. He was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by president Bill Clinton and
took his seat on 3 August 1994.
The world is indeed small, for in the Booker case before the supreme court in 2004, two
lawyers involved in writing the brief (the written argument) for the Justice Department to
support the guidelines were Christopher Wray, now the FBI Director, and Michael Drebeen, who
has been in the Solicitor General's office in the Justice Department and who has been working
at least part time since 2017 for -- you guessed it -- special counsel Robert Mueller [4]. In
this New York Times newspaper story from 6 June 2017 about Christopher Wray being nominated to
be FBI Director, at the beginning of the story is a photograph from February 2004 of three men
standing together -- James Comey (the Deputy Attorney General), Robert Mueller (FBI Director),
and Christopher Wray (Chief of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department) [5]. To
slightly modify the immortal words of comedian George Carlin, "It's a small club, and you're
not in it".
The growing mutation of the sentencing system continues, with endless quibbling among
lawyers in court, judges, and the sentencing commission through litigation over detailed
bureaucratic parts of the guidelines attempting to identify and pull under control every
conceivable variation of a person, the person's conduct, and different factors that might be
considered in a sentence, and assign a number to it, ultimately producing your guideline and
criminal history levels. The sentencing commission has published a selected annotation of 85
supreme court cases from the Mistretta decision in 1989 to one from 2018, with a brief
discussion of each opinion [6].
You can now see and understand the real reason for the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the
carefully crafted system of assigning numbers to points and designing strict categories to
include and control every possible factor about ordering a sentence for a crime.
This system removes the sentencing power and discretion from the courts and judges in the
judicial branch and gives them to the prosecuting attorneys in the executive branch, through
the Department of Justice and the offices of U.S. Attorneys. It has been and is a clever and
diabolical transfer to the prosecuting authority of one of the most important functions in a
criminal justice system: the sentencing punishment or consequence given to a defendant.
I, the federal prosecutor, will decide what your sentence will be by the offenses I decide
to charge you with. All I have to do is get a guilty verdict from a jury trial or from a trial
to the judge if you agree to have a judge alone hear and decide the trial. Or obtain a guilty
plea from you to a charge and on terms that I agree to, whether that guilty plea results from
your objective decision about your conduct, or whether you are coerced into pleading guilty by
the sheer number of charges with possible sentences I have filed against you, or you plead
guilty because you have run out of money and cannot afford a trial, or I threaten to charge
your wife or family members also if you do not plead guilty to what I agree you can plead to.
The judge is so constrained and limited by the sentencing guideline scheme that I am not
worried at all about the sentence you will get; I have no downside risk there.
The presentence investigation report (PSI) about Paul Manafort from the federal probation
office was filed on 6 March and is not publicly available, as is standard practice. Manafort's
sentencing hearing on 13 March is taking on the aura of a spectacle, boosted by the
government's allegation that he violated the terms of his plea agreement, and after the
courageous departure downward from the sentencing guidelines by Judge T.S. Ellis III last week.
Whether Judge Ellis's sentence may be the subject of review by appeal is another dense
issue.
Meanwhile, in the pending case of Gen. Michael Flynn (ret.), a status report by the lawyers
was filed on 12 March. It requested that his sentencing hearing be rescheduled--
Politicians, the press, and candidates announcing a year before the presidential primaries
begin are blathering on clownlike about who has verbally offended whom, which newly invented
group should have new "rights", whether someone is cis-gender, whether the president had sexual
contact with a floozy pornographic movie performer and whether a legal payment to her to keep
it confidential violated campaign finance laws (it did not), and on and on.
All the while, they are blithely unaware that playing out right in front of their faces is a
radical transformation of federal criminal law, consolidating the ultimate governmental power
in the branch that executes the police power, while federal judges with a lifetime appointment
and all office facilities and perks paid for by taxpayers, dither and refuse to honestly
describe and resist what has been happening. All federal judges except for two. One, Antonin
Scalia, left this world in 2016, but was the only one on the supreme court standing against the
slick usurpation of the democratic process and sentencing discretion. The other one, T.S. Ellis
III, is still with us, and he not only understands what the sentencing guidelines really are,
but he also assessed a sentence as it used to be done, without the double meaning of 1984.
[2] The official version of a Supreme Court opinion is in a book called the United States
Reports. The Supreme Court has a digital version of its opinions in the pdf computer format
going back only to volume 509, and the Mistretta opinion is in volume 488. Other internet
websites have reproduced the opinion.
[3] The supreme court opinion is in a bound volume on the court's website, but I do not have
the software at hand to pull it out as a separate document. The full volume of 1,259 pages in
the pdf computer format is 3.9 megabytes in size and can be viewed or downloaded. The Booker
opinion is on pdf pages 422 to 536, and on book pages 220 to 334.
Thank you Robert for the education. Most people, even educated ones don't grasp the scale,
scope and intricacies of our governmental apparatus. I know the more I learn, the more I
become convinced we have a leviathan that is manipulated, twisted, overly complex and one
that is working only for the ruling elites. We have to cut this behemoth down to size. And
follow Taleb's maxims of "Skin in the Game" and "Anti-fragile" meaning simplicity.
"The point was and is that laws are to be made by Congress, and not from
scratch by delegating the power to a type of commission, which Judge
Scalia called 'a sort of junior-varsity Congress' ". Such as the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. has ordered the Syrian government to pay $302
million in damages for the murder of journalist Marie Colvin in a 2012 artillery
strike. The decision, issued on Wednesday, marks the first time in the seven-year conflict
that a court has declared Syrian forces loyal to the government of President Bashar
al-Assad responsible for deliberately attacking civilians.
Then there is the case of Iran's destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001.
Iran is ordered to pay "$12,500,000 per spouse, $8,500,000 per parent, $8,500,000 per
child, and $4,250,000 per sibling" to the families and estates of the deceased, court
filings say.
A 4.96 annual interest rate will also be applied to the amount, starting from September
11, 2001 to the date of the judgement.
I'm mentioning this because of a story I saw on a blog operated by the son of America's
Most Famous Jewish Orthodox Author. The fellow was gloating about the apartheid Jewish state
"...cutting terror salaries from Palestinian Authority taxes..."
The guy's smug satisfaction gave me an idea. What If the US of A chose a number somewhere
between the "life value" of Marie Colvin and the values assigned to the 9/11 victims, and
subtracted the money from the 'allowance" given to the apartheid Jewish state. Every time
they murder a Palestinian, they lose XX million dollars. Naturally the same thing would apply
to times Palestinians murder one of their occupiers.
Or is it "anti-semitic" to even compare God's Most Favorite Thieves and Murderers with the
subhuman creatures they're trampling underfoot?
Just one week ago,
we warned that the government -- helped by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing
police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the
Rapid DNA Act into
law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who
are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping
at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget) -- was embarking on a diabolical campaign
to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.
As it turns out we were right, but we forgot one key spoke of the government's campaign to collect genetic information from
as many individuals as possible: "innocent", commercial companies, who not only collect DNA from willing clients, but are also
paid for it.
FamilyTreeDNA, one of the pioneers of the growing market for "at home", consumer genetic testing, confirmed a report from
BuzzFeed that it has quietly granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation access to its vast trove of nearly 2 million genetic
profiles.
... ... ...
Worse, it did so secretly, without obtaining prior permission from its users.
The move is of significant concern to much more than just privacy-minded FamilyTreeDNA customers. As Bloomberg notes, one
person sharing genetic information also exposes those to whom they are closely related. That's how police caught the alleged
Golden State Killer. And here is a stunning statistics - according to a 2018 study, only 2% of the population needs to have done
a DNA test for virtually everyone's genetic information to be represented in that data.
Looks like the color revolution against Trump continues. What is interesting is that while
Trump position becomes more and more shaky he does not want to fight. And he suppounded himself
with people, which will sell him at the first opportunity. I means first of all this neocon
warmonger Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... It really does tell a story that exonerates Trump of the Russian collusion narrative but also exposes the desperation of Mueller to create a crime where none exists. ..."
"... Where is President Trump in all this? These are all actions taken by his DOJ and FBI appointees. Does he believe that his responsibility ends with a tweet? Why hasn't he hauled Whitaker, Rosenstein and Wray into his office and demanded equal application of the law with respect to Hillary, Clapper, Brennan and Comey lying to Congress? Why hasn't he declassified all the information around the role of Fusion GPS, Clinton campaign, FBI, DOJ, CIA with respect to interference in the presidential campaign? ..."
"... Is he not POTUS? Or is he just a character in a VR game? ..."
"... I think, for what's it worth, that the whole point to Mueller and all the legal harassment and arrests of people associated, even to a small extent with the Trump campaign, is to scare people away from working with Trump on the 2020 campaign and leave the Donald high and dry. That and create an illusion of criminality around Trump. Again, that's an uninformed opinion; just an opinion derived from what I see. Curious to know if you think there's any truth to it. Thx ..."
"... Eric, it's called "file stuffing " a bureaucratic name for assembling a mountainous pile of allegations - 99.9% of which are either trivial or false, that is too big and convoluted for any team of humans to refute in detail at one sitting. ..."
"... Mueller is following the Department of Injustice practice of throwing multiple charges at people, even though they know many of them won't stick, so as to drive up the costs of discovery. Thus looms the prospect financial ruin for all but the wealthiest of defendants. This induces them to plead guilty to lesser charges in order to preserve their retirement savings and possibly long prison sentences. ..."
"... DoJ career prosecutors are evaluated on their out-of-court settlement rates and this is how they achieve high ones. ..."
"... So much for the de facto right of a fair trial. IIRC, when the press got to stone after the court appearance he stated that he'll take this to trial. He may have second thoughts as the legal bills pile up. ..."
I have had to shut off all of the media. The media/establishment hatred of Trump and their
desire to force him from office is palpable and on near continuous display on every cable
channel, including Fox. These pundits remind me of the drowning passengers from the Titanic,
flailing frantically while immersed in freezing water but going no where but down. They are
keen on avoiding facts. Let's be clear what the facts are about Roger Stone.
FACT ONE
Roger Stone had an extremely short tenure with the Trump campaign. He served in an
undefined position as a "campaign advisor" and either quit or was fired on 8 August 2015.
Politico's account of the incident attributed Stone's departure to Trump's comments
regarding former Fox star, Megyn Kelly:
Regardless of who resigned or was fired first, the campaign shakeup was the first sign that
Trump's election effort was seriously damaged from within after his Thursday night debate
performance and his subsequent comments in which he attacked one of the Fox debate moderators,
Megyn Kelly.
Stone was never a critical component or the Trump campaign. He was not an insider and he was
not a "go to guy" for Trump's inner circle. The indictment smears Stone by an unsupported claim
that Stone had regular, continuing contact with unnamed persons affiliated with the Trump
campaign even after his August 2015 departure. Having conversations is not illegal. Moreover,
Stone was never a go to guy for the campaign.
FACT TWO
Roger Stone does have a history with Paul Manafort, who served a brief tenure as
Trump's campaign manager. They formed a political consulting firm in 1980--
Black, Manafort, Stone
and Kelly --and became known as bare knuckle brawlers in the world of electoral politics.
They worked for Reagan and for George H.W. Bush. Worth noting that Manafort's time with the
Trump campaign started off in March 2016--seven months after Stone's departure--as an advisor
on going after delegates. He was promoted to campaign manager on May 19, 2016 and resigned from
the campaign on August 19, 2016 under the cloud of
being cozy with
Putin :
The Trump campaign provided no reason for Manafort's resignation. But in the days
immediately leading up to the announcement, the
New
York Times reported investigators were looking into $12.7 million in undisclosed
cash payments to Manafort from former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, and the Associated
Press
reported he helped a pro-Russian party in Ukraine funnel money to lobbying firms in
Washington, D.C.
There is a lot of speculation about who Stone was talking to.
Person 1 in the
indictment is Jerome Corsi. Person 2 is Randy Credico. None were involved in any
substantive way with the Trump campaign. I would not be surprised if it was Manafort (or
someone acting at his behest) that reached out to Stone to see if he could get any additional
info about Wikileaks plans.
FACT THREE
Roger Stone is a bullshitter and grand raconteur. He can tell you things that
sound spot on but are not true. I have first hand experience with him on this point. I first
met Roger in the spring of 1980. I was teaching in the Washington Semester Program at American
University and he spoke to my class. I did not see Roger in person again until March of
2018--we were on the same flight from Fort Lauderdale enroute to Washington. I introduced
myself and we got reacquainted. Subsequent to that meeting I watched the documentary on Roger
Stone and was amused to see him "credited" (or blamed) for starting the Whitey rumor--i.e., the
claim that there was a video tape of Michelle Obama using the phrase Whitey in a speech before
a group linked to Louis Farrakhan. Why amused? I started that rumor at the direction of Sidney
Blumenthal (I did not believe it was a rumor but I was gamed--but that is a story for another
day).
I ran into Roger last August, again at the airport. This time it was Washington Reagan
National. I walked up to him and told him that he was being blamed for something I did. I
proceeded to tell the story and he laughed when he learned that this smear of Michelle came
from the Clinton Campaign. Roger is a connoisseur of dirty tricks.
With this background, I want you to take a fresh look at Mueller's indictment of Stone.
It really does tell a story that exonerates Trump of the Russian collusion narrative but
also exposes the desperation of Mueller to create a crime where none exists. (BTW, kudos
to Robert Willman for his excellent piece at Sic Semper).
During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials (NOT FURTHER
IDENTIFIED) about WIKILEAKS and information it might have had that would be damaging to the
Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about
future releases by Organization 1.
By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to have
communicated with WIKILEAKS. By in or around mid-August 2016, WIKILEAKS made a public statement
denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his communication with
WIKILEAKS had occurred through a person STONE described as a "mutual friend," "go-between," and
"intermediary." STONE also continued to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign about
WIKILEAKS and its intended future releases.
Here is what this really demonstrates. First, Stone was talking out of his ass. He was
portraying himself to people in the Trump campaign (probably Manafort) as a guy with inside
knowledge. Based on what I know about Stone, I am sure he was playing this angle in hopes of
getting back into the good graces of the Trump campaign. Second, if the Trump organization was
actively colluding with the Russians and Wikileaks, why were they asking Stone to find out what
Wikileaks had and what it intended to do with such material.
This is the most critical revelation, in my view, from this indictment--the Trump campaign
did not know what Wikileaks had or what it intended to do. They were reaching out to an
outsider--a third party--who claimed to have contacts with Wikileaks. But Stone did not. In
typical Roger Stone fashion, his story kept changing. Initially he insisted he was in direct
contact with someone there. Not true. He then admitted that he was relying on the word of Randy
Credico. That probably was the truth. But Credico's information was second hand. Randy Credico
knew the wife of Julian Assange's deceased attorney--Margaret Ratner Kunstler, widow of
William Kunstler.
She did have contacts at Wikileaks and was in a position to tell Credico that more dirt on
Clinton was coming. But Stone was parlaying third hand information to present himself as a guy
with inside knowledge. That's not criminal. That is typical of Washington and the world of
journalism.
What is being done to Roger Stone is wrong. He was playing politics and playing according to
Washington rules. It may not be pretty and may not be ethical. But it is not criminal and
certainly does not justify sending out a ninja clad SWAT team to take him into custody. I hope
some wealthy benefactors step up and help fund Stone's defense fund. He will win this case.
Mueller and his team are the ones who have crossed an ethical and moral line.
Thank you for that vital point that this indictment contradicts the Official Story that the
Trump campaign was in cahoots with the Russians in regards to the Wikileaks DNC info.
After Thursday's news that Trump had decided to recognize the coup government in
Venezuela, I chose to subject myself to the Rachel Maddow Show to see the official reaction
of the Resistance™. She spent the entire first section of the show rehashing a story
about security clearances from a year ago. Obviously, the MSM is confused whether to be
against it, because TRUMP BAD, or to be for it, because ST. OBAMA imposed sanctions on
Venezuela.
Mueller relieved them of the need to make those hard decisions by sending a heavily armed
swat team on a predawn raid of an extremely dangerous loudmouth old braggart. They could even
ignore the news that Elliot Abrams had been dragged back out of obscurity to oversee the rest
of the coup in Venezuela. How long before Secord and North are shipping weapons from Israel
to the noble freedom fighters of Venezuela?
RE: Roger Stone and his Pinocchio problems. To f***ing bad. As long as he has been around, if
he isn't smart enough to know that he can get his ass in a jam by lying to Congress or the
FBI, the dude isn't thinking too straight. This administration seems to have a problem with
truth telling, all the way from Trump to the numerous administration/campaign officials
indicted or plead guilty to lying to the FBI or Congress. Blaming Mueller for their dishonest
utterances is putting the shoe on the wrong foot.
Where is President Trump in all this? These are all actions taken by his DOJ and FBI
appointees. Does he believe that his responsibility ends with a tweet? Why hasn't he hauled
Whitaker, Rosenstein and Wray into his office and demanded equal application of the law with
respect to Hillary, Clapper, Brennan and Comey lying to Congress? Why hasn't he declassified
all the information around the role of Fusion GPS, Clinton campaign, FBI, DOJ, CIA with
respect to interference in the presidential campaign?
Is he not POTUS? Or is he just a character in a VR game?
Eric Newhill's comment is spot on. Why would anyone want to work for Trump's campaign and
be ruined financially and face legal jeopardy when all he does is tweet? His actions show
weakness and his opponents know it.
Jack, I'm assuming he is not doing those things because he is completely surrounded by the
Deep State who is already going after him one every front. Every time he has tried to cut
back on forever war he gets sabotaged by the Borg. The gov't is yuuuuge and Trump and his
small crew are peanuts compared to that. It's very difficult to make progress on his agenda
given the level of internal opposition he faces and how outnumbered he is.
From what I have
learned over the years the POTUS does not have much freedom. Obama talked about this too.
Why should they care when the FBI & DOJ are going after their opponent Trump's minions?
He is the one that should care that his guys are the ones being being targeted and not his
opponents.
What you say sounds right enough to me - though I kind of have to take it on faith because
I've never been anywhere near the world you describe.
However, I think, for what's it worth,
that the whole point to Mueller and all the legal harassment and arrests of people
associated, even to a small extent with the Trump campaign, is to scare people away from
working with Trump on the 2020 campaign and leave the Donald high and dry. That and create an
illusion of criminality around Trump. Again, that's an uninformed opinion; just an opinion
derived from what I see. Curious to know if you think there's any truth to it. Thx
Eric, it's called "file stuffing " a bureaucratic name for assembling a mountainous pile of
allegations - 99.9% of which are either trivial or false, that is too big and convoluted for
any team of humans to refute in detail at one sitting.
This file is then served up to a judge (or the Republican National Convention) with the
offered assumption that because the file is so voluminous, the allegations contained must be
substantially true.
I would expect to hear Trump labelled as a "troubled President" because, you know, he and
his campaign did all these illegal things, so he must be guilty of stuff, so he needs to be
impeached and can't stand in 2020, meh or whatever..........
Mueller is following the Department of Injustice practice of throwing multiple charges at
people, even though they know many of them won't stick, so as to drive up the costs of
discovery. Thus looms the prospect financial ruin for all but the wealthiest of defendants.
This induces them to plead guilty to lesser charges in order to preserve their retirement
savings and possibly long prison sentences.
DoJ career prosecutors are evaluated on their
out-of-court settlement rates and this is how they achieve high ones.
So much for the de
facto right of a fair trial. IIRC, when the press got to stone after the court appearance he
stated that he'll take this to trial. He may have second thoughts as the legal bills pile up.
The partial government shutdown has left local jails across the country scrambling to pay
their bills because they rely on money they get from U.S. agencies to house federal inmates,
and those checks have stopped flowing.
Nov 9, 2010 -- 17 charged in $42 million Holocaust fraud case. FBI: Employees at Jewish
Claims Center had people pretend to be victims of Nazi persecution so they could collect
money German funds over 6000 phony claims
Germany Seeks Compensation for $57M Holocaust Fraud -- The Forward https://forward.com › News ›
World
Apr 17, 2015 -- Germany is for the first time seeking compensation for the $57 million
lost to fraud at the Claims Conference. But the Holocaust agency says it
On Wednesday, the United States Senate voted 87-12 in favor of watered-down legislation
that will roll back a few of the most draconian provisions of the federal criminal justice
system.
The "First Step Act," short for the "Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed
Safely Transitioning Every Person Act," goes back to the House of Representatives, which
passed a slightly stronger version last May by a vote of 360 to 59.
For his own opportunistic reasons, President Donald Trump pushed Senate Republicans to
support the legislation, tweeting after the vote, "America is the greatest Country in the
world and my job is to fight for ALL citizens, even those who have made mistakes."
When it comes to locking people up, the United States does indeed stand on top of the
heap. By large margins, there are more people in state and federal penitentiaries, 2.3
million, and a larger percentage of its population incarcerated than any other nation. The
federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is the largest single prison system, incarcerating some
180,000 inmates, almost 25 percent beyond its designated capacity.
Mass incarceration is not just barbaric and cruel. It adds billions in expenses to
government budgets and deprives capitalists of a significant pool of potential workers to
keep downward pressure on wages. Efforts to reform the federal system, which can encourage
similar reforms on the state level, have been building for years.
In a second tweet, Trump added, "In addition to everything else, billions of dollars will
be saved. I look forward to signing this into law!"
Federal courts, which handle crimes such as drug trafficking, bank robbery and a variety
of so-called white-collar offenses, are governed by strict sentencing guidelines that compel
lengthy sentences. Offenders entitled to maximum "good time" credits are nevertheless
required to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
The legislation was sponsored by an unusual coalition that included the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Conservative Union, the right-wing Koch brothers and the
liberal Center for American Progress. All 12 votes against the measure were cast by Senate
Republicans.
Trump made a point of marshaling celebrity support, including a much ballyhooed meeting
last September with the renowned nobody Kim Kardashian, CNN commentator Van Jones and Trump's
son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who lobbied for passage.
The legislation funds job training and other programs for "low-risk" inmates, who can earn
time credits that reduce their sentence, and there are new provisions for "prerelease
custody" such as "halfway houses" and "home confinement." Certain categories of "violent
offenders" and some drug traffickers are excluded, however. The bill removes restrictions on
contracting with faith-based contractors, and in that manner contributes to the ongoing
repudiation of the First Amendment's prohibition against government sponsorship of
religion.
The legislation places limits on shackling pregnant inmates and solitary confinement for
children, two provisions that should never have been necessary. Another section directs the
Bureau of Prisons to incarcerate inmates in facilities close to their families when
feasible.
There are three prospective changes to sentencing laws. First, mandatory minimums for some
nonviolent drug offenses are reduced. The "three strikes" penalty is lowered from life in
prison to 25 years, a small comfort for affected inmates and their families. Second, federal
district judges will have slightly more access to "safety valves" to avoid imposing mandatory
minimum sentences. Third, "stacking" firearm possession on a sentence for another crime, like
a drug offense, is limited to offenders with prior convictions.
Generally, these provisions are not retroactive and are of no use to people now in
custody. A fourth sentencing provision, however, allows inmates sentenced before the 2010
reduction in the disparity between crack and powder cocaine to petition for re-sentencing.
Those people have already served eight years under provisions of law recognized as
discriminatory.
The changes are, as a whole, relatively minor, but that did not stop Democrats such as
Cory Booker, the New Jersey senator, from calling the bill "sweeping," "the biggest
breakthrough in criminal justice in a generation," and the like. CNN commentator Van Jones
called the Senate vote a "Christmas miracle." All of these forces heaped praise on Trump for
his support.
Central to the arguments to promote prison reforms is a human rights argument - the premise
on which many UN standards and norms have been developed.
Criminal Justice Reform
Criminal justice reform may wind up being the most significant conservative policy change in
Washington this year.
Prison Reform Movement
How the Reform Movement Changed America - Created new mental institutions called asylums. -
More mentally ill admitted. - Increase in funding for asylums. - Reduced cruel treatment in
asylums. - Improved conditions for poor mentally ill.
Prison Litigation Reform Act
(don't support)The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) makes it harder for prisoners to file
lawsuits in federal court.
Prison And Asylum Reform
Prison reform has had a long history in the United States, beginning with the construction
of the nation's first prisons. From the time of the earliest prisons in the United States,
reformers have struggled with the problem of how to punish criminals while also preserving
their humanity.
Criminal Justice Reform Organizations
Although many people believe that representing clients and fighting criminal justice falls
on the public defenders office, nonprofit organizations play a vital role.
What Is Prison
Reform
Prison reform is the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons, establish a more
effective penal system, or implement alternatives to incarceration.
Prison Reform
Definition
The reforms are targeted to address the core behavioral issues that result in criminality,
with the goal of reducing the likelihood that inmates re-offend either while incarcerated or
after their release.
Criminal Justice Reform Bill
The House Judiciary Committee is working on a bipartisan basis on several bills to improve
the criminal justice system.
Prison Reform 2017
THE URGENCY of criminal-justice reform in 2017 has become a rare matter of bipartisan
consensus in Washington.
Prison Reform 2018
Overcrowding, medical inadequacies, sexual assault, solitary confinement and other threats
to the health and safety of both prisoners and guards proliferate in U.S. prisons and jails in
2018.
Criminal Justice System Reform
Some pilots have been successfully launched in several states. Others will be rolled out at
two prisons in early 2017.
What Is Criminal Justice Reform
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population but almost 25 percent of
the total prison population.
Prison Reform Organizations
In 1980, there were about 500,000 people in prison in the U.S. Today there are 2.3 million,
and according to the 2008 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics there's a total of over 7 million
people on parole or probation or locked up.
Prison Reform In America
Just as conservatives once led the way toward the tougher sentencing rules and other
policies that increased imprisonment rates, they should lead the way in sensibly shrinking the
prison population.
Criminal Justice Reform 2017
Reduce the number of absurdly long prison sentences in America.
Criminal Justice
Reform 2018
Central to the arguments to promote prison reforms is a human rights argument - the premise
on which many UN standards and norms have been developed.
Criminal Justice Reform Act
The Council passed legislation in May 2016 to create more proportional penalties for certain
low‑level, non‑violent offense.s
Criminal Justice Reform Definition
Criminal justice reform in the United States is a type of reform aimed at fixing perceived
errors in the criminal justice system.
Prison And Mental Health Reform
Asylum and Prison reforms, still topics of importance today, have changed drastically from
the era of Dorothea Dix's reforms.
Prison Reform Articles
Research has considered the quality of health care provided in USA's prisons, and has
analyzed the impact of correctional education on employment.
US Prison Reform
The West Wing push for prison reform is at odds with Jeff Sessions's jail-happy Justice
Department.
Dan Davies on financial fraud is certainly the most entertaining book on Economics I have
read this year. Highly recommend itcold Chris Dillow :
Review of Dan Davies: Lying for Money : "Squalid crude affairs committed mostly by
inadequates. This is a message of Dan Davies' history of fraud, Lying For Money ....
Most frauds fall into a few simple types.... Setting up a fake company... pyramid schemes...
control frauds, whereby someone abuses a position of trust... plain counterfeiters. My
favourite was Alves dos Reis, who persuaded the printers of legitimate Portuguese banknotes to
print even more of them.... All this is done with the wit and clarity of exposition for which
we have long admired Dan. His footnotes are an especial delight, reminding me of William
Donaldson. Dan has also a theory of fraud. 'The optimal level of fraud is unlikely to be zero'
he says. If we were to take so many precautions to stop it, we would also strangle legitimate
economic activity...
"... So if the US government is secretly releasing Federal prisoners, and if that is the case then American justice is on par with the Mexican penal system, where such occurrences are routine. ..."
The Israelis were extradited to the U.S., where the prosecutor described them as "a predatory group that targeted
elderly people in the U.S., conning them into believing they were lottery winners. Preying on their victims' dreams of financial
comfort, [they] bilked them out of substantial portions of their life savings." According to the
U.S. Attorney's office :
"The defendants operated multiple boiler rooms that used the names of various sham law firms purportedly located in New York,
including law firms named 'Abrahams Kline,' 'Bernstein Schwartz,' 'Steiner, Van Allen, and Colt,' 'Bloomberg and Associates,"
and 'Meyer Stevens.'
The defendants further used various aliases and call forwarding telephone numbers to mask the fact that the
defendants were located in Israel. The defendants also possessed bank accounts in Israel, Cyprus, and Uganda, to which illegal
proceeds were wired."
The ringleaders, Avi Ayache and Yaron Bar, were eventually convicted, and the U.S. prosecutor announced that they would "spend a
substantial portion of their lives in prison." Ayache was sentenced in 2014 to 13 years in prison and Bar to 12. Yet,
prison records indicate the two were released the next year. Other members
of the ring also appear to have been released after extraordinarily little time. If these men did serve only a tiny portion of their
U.S. sentences, as public records and phone calls and emails to the Bureau of Prisons indicate, this may be due to the fact that
Israelis are allowed to be imprisoned in Israel instead of in the U.S. Their sentences then are determined by Israel and, as we will
see below, are often far shorter than they would be in the U.S.
Gery Shalon – hundreds of millions of dollars
In 2015 Gery Shalon and
two other Israelis were charged with utilizing hacked data for 100 million people to spam them with "pump and dump" penny stocks,
netting hundreds of millions of dollars.
The money was then laundered through an illegal bitcoin exchange allegedly owned by Shalon (more on bitcoin below). Shalon was
considered the ringleader of what U.S. prosecutors called a "
sprawling
criminal enterprise. " He faced decades behind bars.
However, he was instead given a
plea deal
in which he escaped any prison sentence whatsoever. Worth $2 billion, Shalon was to pay a $403 million fine.
...The ringleaders, Avi Ayache and Yaron Bar, were eventually convicted, and the U.S. prosecutor announced that they would
"spend a substantial portion of their lives in prison." Ayache was sentenced in 2014 to 13 years in prison and Bar to 12. Yet,
prison records indicate the two were released the next year. Other members of the ring also appear to have been released after
extraordinarily little time.
So if the US government is secretly releasing Federal prisoners, and if that is the case then American justice is on par with
the Mexican penal system, where such occurrences are routine.
Can anyone here verify if those two are in prison in Israel or free?
"... (Editor's Note: President Trump threw his support behind a bipartisan bill to reform federal sentencing guidelines Wednesday, the details and politics of which we describe below) ..."
Criminal justice reform is a complicated subject, but it's based on some simple ideas. The
vast majority of prisoners will get out one day and return to their communities. It makes
sense, therefore, to offer them treatment for problems such as drug addiction and mental
illness, while also helping them with job skills and training. That way, they have a chance to
make a go of life on the outside, rather than committing new crimes and returning to prison. To
do otherwise is not just ineffective policy but counterproductive, because it means more crimes
will be committed.
This philosophy is a rebuke, in other words, to the "tough on crime" policies that dominated
discussion during the 1980s and 1990s. Back then, when murder rates were rising fast and the
crack cocaine epidemic was rotting cities from within, politicians shied far from the idea that
it was worth trying to rehabilitate prisoners. All they wanted to show criminals was a concrete
cell and maybe a hammer they could use to bust up rocks. Providing any sort of helping hand to
convicts came to be viewed as misguided mercy. Congress and the states adopted policies such as
mandatory minimum sentencing laws that may have cut back on crime but certainly caused prison
populations to soar.
As a candidate, Trump sounded like he came out of that more punitive tradition. He had long
advocated for aggressive police tactics such as stop-and-frisk, in which New York cops patted
down individuals for drugs and weapons on pretenses the courts ultimately considered dubious.
In his 2000 book The America We Deserve , he said that "tough crime policies are the
most important form of national defense," making it essential that government "tranquiliz[e]
the criminal element as much as possible." He vowed in his acceptance speech at the Republican
National Convention in 2016 to "liberate our citizens" from "the crime and violence that today
afflicts our nation"; blamed President Barack Obama throughout the campaign for releasing
violent criminals; and argued on Fox News that police could solve problems in cities like
Chicago by "being very much tougher than they are right now." He tweeted that "inner-city crime
is reaching record levels" and pledged to "stop the slaughter going on."
(Editor's Note: President Trump
threw his support behind a bipartisan bill to reform federal sentencing guidelines
Wednesday, the details and politics of which we describe below)
Trump seemed ready to put his law and order campaign rhetoric into practice by installing
Jeff Sessions as his attorney general. They've had their differences, but Sessions remains an
active voice when it comes to criminal justice. As a senator, he presented one of the most
significant roadblocks against a criminal justice reform bill that enjoyed broad bipartisan
support but ended up dying toward the end of the Obama administration. Sessions warned that the
bill "would release thousands of violent felons and endanger millions of Americans whose safety
is increasingly threatened by rising crime rates." As attorney general, Sessions has continued
to take a hard line on crime and drug issues. Blaming Trump and Sessions for backward-looking
policies, The New York Times editorialized that their approach represented "the undoing
of justice reform."
Not so fast. Despite all of this, Trump has instead emerged as an unlikely or at least
surprising champion for criminal justice reform. "Many people made a big mistake assuming what
Trump administration policies were going to be," says Vikrant Reddy, a senior fellow at the
Charles Koch Institute focusing on criminal justice reform and policing reform.
Trump may be instinctively anti-crime -- he frequently cites his concerns about illegal
immigration and gangs -- but it turns out he has been open to new and less reactionary ways of
fighting it. And that includes the system taking a more proactive role in prisoner
rehabilitation. The real payoff is for society as a whole, which should expect higher
percentages of ex-convicts to find employment and housing and become productive members of
their communities -- if they're properly equipped -- rather than just coming out "hardened" and
destined to fall back on their worst proclivities.
A number of conservative groups have been preaching this gospel for years, including the
Heritage Foundation, the American Conservative Union Foundation, FreedomWorks, Right on Crime,
and R Street Institute, all of which have been quietly building a criminal justice coalition
within the Republican Party. They helped convince the White House that it was time to pursue
this course at the federal level, getting a direct channel with Trump.
The reform agenda has been shepherded by Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and
senior advisor. Charles Kushner, Jared's father, was sentenced to two years in federal prison
on charges of witness tampering, tax evasion, and illegal campaign donations, which helps
explains his son's political sensitivity on the incarceration issue, making it a personal
priority in Trump's first term.
Kushner has worked closely not just with conservative advocates, but with Democrats who are
otherwise ideological enemies. He's reached out personally to convicts and family members whose
stories were publicized in the media. "Like many of the other leaders who are supporting this
legislation, he was deeply impacted by his [family's] experience," says Jessica Jackson Sloan,
national director of #cut50, a progressive criminal justice advocacy group. "It redefined what
he thought of people who go to prison."
Sloan co-founded #cut50 with Van Jones, a liberal commentator on CNN who worked for the
Obama White House on green jobs, but has collaborated with Kushner and other Republicans such
as Newt Gingrich on criminal justice reform. There's mutual interest on this issue: liberals
such as New York Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries, have decided to work with the
administration on criminal justice reform at a time when it's almost political suicide for them
to be caught working with any Republicans at all, this president in particular.
But it's Trump's embrace of the issue that has helped quiet conservative critics who helped
sink criminal justice reform proposals during the last Congress. Trump hosted a prison reform
summit at the White House in May, offering the most flattering platform possible for advocates
of the "smart on crime" approach. "Prison reform is an issue that unites people from across the
political spectrum," Trump said at the event. "It's an amazing thing. Our whole nation benefits
if former inmates are able to reenter society as productive, law-abiding citizens." He
promised, in his usual humble way, that America's criminal justice system would emerge as "the
best of its kind anywhere in the world."
Four days later, the House overwhelmingly approved, 360-59, a prison reform bill. Among
other things, the bill would authorize $50 million annually over the next five years for the
Bureau of Prisons to spend on education, job training, and drug treatment programs. "While we
recognize criminal behavior needs to be punished and criminals need to be incarcerated, we must
also acknowledge that our prison population needs to be rehabilitated to the greatest extent
practicable," said Virginia Democratic Representative Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee. "The bill establishes a risk and needs assessment as the basis of both an
effective recidivism reduction program and an efficient and effective federal prison
system."
A grand total of two House Republicans voted against the bill. Most of the opposition came
from liberal Democrats who complained the bill did not go far enough. The Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights and dozens of allied groups warned it did nothing to reform sentencing
requirements or guidelines. "Meaningful reform," they argued, requires both elements. "To
reform America's prisons, we must change the laws that send people to them in the first place,"
former Attorney General Eric Holder argued in TheWashington Post . "Anything
less represents a failure of leadership."
If the only critics of the House bill were Obama administration holdovers, a few liberal
lawmakers, and groups on the left, their complaints wouldn't matter much in today's Washington.
But some Republican advocates, too, believe that changes in prison practices must be coupled
with amendments to sentencing laws.
Among their number is Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa.
"We need a more strategic approach to drug sentencing that focuses law enforcement resources on
violent career criminals and drug kingpins instead of non-violent, lower level offenders," he
wrote in April. Working with Democrats such as Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate
minority whip, Grassley has emerged as a key voice on criminal justice reform on Capitol Hill
and his support is considered necessary, if not necessarily sufficient, to see any prison bill
through the upper chamber.
While Grassley is a powerful advocate for sentencing reform, there are Republicans critics,
not to mention Sessions and conceivably the president himself who could pose the most difficult
roadblocks to legislation. "Frankly, sentencing reform would cause a lot of trouble in the
House, especially with Republicans," says Republican Representative Doug Collins of Georgia,
the House bill's lead sponsor. "But it also has problems with the president."
Still, it's possible that the easiest path forward for the bill on the Senate side would be
to add a limited set of sentencing provisions, in order to get Democrats on board and satisfy
Grassley, who in February helped to pass the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, along with
New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker and Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah. That bill
would reduce some mandatory minimum sentences, allow judges more discretion in certain cases,
and reduce three-strike penalties for some offenders from life imprisonment to 25 years.
"If you add a couple of modest sentencing pieces, this thing gets across the finish line,"
says Jason Pye, vice president of legislative affairs for FreedomWorks, of a possible
compromise bill with the House. "That's probably the only way this gets done."
Since the summer, the White House has been negotiating with members of Congress to come up
with a compromise that would be voted on following the midterm elections. It would incorporate
some changes in sentencing law to satisfy Grassley and Senate Democrats, but without going so
far as to drive away too many other Republicans. It's a narrow path that has taken months to
navigate, but advocates realize the odds look brighter for passage in a lame-duck session than
they would in the new year, when the liberal position will likely be strengthened by expected
Democratic gains in the House, throwing off the issue's delicate bipartisan balance. "We
believe they really want to get this done," a House aide told . "The hope is everybody gets to
yes, because everyone knows it will be harder in the next Congress."
In Congress, it's always easier to kill than to pass something. There's a very low price to
pay in Washington for doing nothing. But an idea that has support from across the political
spectrum -- and one that has become a domestic priority, at least in general terms, for the
president -- can't be written off entirely. The fact that most of the complaints are about
what's not in the legislation, rather than what's in it, is actually promising.
The percentage of adults supervised by some sort of correctional system in the U.S.
(incarceration, probation, or parole) has dropped for nine straight years. In 2016, it was
lower than it had been since 1993. The violent crime rate has fallen by just under half over
that same period. Out of 1.5 million incarcerated individuals, about 190,000 are in federal
custody. With states responsible for most prisoners and a majority of them having enacted some
type of criminal justice reform, some say that the outcome in Washington ultimately doesn't
matter much. "The feds are way behind the states," says Rick Raemisch, executive director of
the Colorado Department of Corrections. "What they do is irrelevant to us."
But that isn't hindering momentum on Capitol Hill. Grassley has also joined with Republican
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah to address the issue of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind").
In essence, they are worried about people who have been convicted of crimes they had no intent
to commit. Their legislation would identify criminal statutes that lack a mens rea
standard, giving agencies six years to issue rules clarifying when -- and how much -- intent is
needed for enforcement. "There are more than 4,500 criminal laws on the books and more
regulatory crimes than the Congressional Research Service was able to count," Hatch and
Grassley wrote in a Washington Examiner op-ed. "And when many of these crimes are
drafted without clear criminal intent requirements, it becomes increasingly easy for
unsuspecting Americans to be sent to jail for conduct they had no idea was against the
law."
Another idea being talked about on Capitol Hill is modifying section 851 of the criminal
code, which allows prosecutors to double the mandatory minimum sentences sought for repeat
offenders, or even increase the penalty to life. It was meant to be a tool used against
hardened criminals, but prosecutors have often used it as a bludgeon to force plea deals from
defendants who insist on their right to trial (a practice Holder clamped down on as attorney
general). Another section being looked at is 924(c), which currently calls for adding jail time
to sentences when a criminal carries or uses a firearm in connection with federal crimes such
as drug trafficking. Prosecutors are sometimes required to "stack" charges under the code that
add years to sentences against criminals who are not truly violent.
In one notorious case, Weldon Angelos was sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling
marijuana, after a confidential informant said he had firearms in his possession and at his
home. Even the judge who sentenced him called his punishment "unjust, cruel, and even
irrational," given that far shorter sentences are meted out to child rapists and hijackers.
"Our provisions dealing with 924(c) are actually tougher on crime moving forward," Senator Lee
said at a Judiciary hearing. "This expands the application of 924(c) moving forward so it
applies to violent offenders and not just drug offenders who are recidivists."
The risk is that modifying sentencing enhancements, or digging deeper into the criminal
code, could cost these bills as much support as would be gained. Some liberals are convinced,
after a long drought, that this legislative effort is likely to be the last of its kind for a
very long time, so they want to demand as much as they possibly can. Others recognize that any
bill that can reach Trump's desk is bound to be a compromise. "You don't start cutting with the
thickest part of the axe," says Jessica Jackson Sloan of #cut50.
The House-passed bill's formal title is an ungainly mouthful: the Formerly Incarcerated
Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act. It's one of those convoluted
titles meant to spell out an acronym, which in this case is the FIRST STEP Act. Backers say
it's just that -- a first swing at this issue. Its passage, they say, wouldn't be the final
word on criminal justice reform, but rather offer proof of concept that Congress can actually
pass something that addresses it.
"It doesn't scratch every itch, even just in a prison reform context, but it's a significant
piece of legislation that moves the ball forward," says Derek Cohen, director of Right on
Crime.
In addition to increasing funding for vocational and rehab programs -- which have long
waitlists -- the bill would help prisoners get ID or other documentation they'll need to find
jobs and housing on the outside. It would also direct the Bureau of Prisons to incarcerate
convicts within 500 miles of their primary residence, since studies indicate that keeping
prisoners within reasonable range of their families cuts down on recidivism. The bill would
allow prisoners -- those not convicted of sex offenses, terrorism, or some other serious crimes
-- to earn 10 days of time credits for every 30 days of educational, job training, or other
risk reduction programming they complete, with bonuses if they're repeatedly assessed at low
risk levels for recidivism. The credited time could be served in home confinement, halfway
houses, or under community supervision.
The bill would also increase the amount of "good time credits" inmates who avoid
disciplinary problems can earn per year, from 47 days to 54 days. This provision would apply
retroactively, meaning some prisoners could be released as soon as the bill goes into effect.
That cost the bill the support of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which
initially embraced the FIRST STEP Act. "Probation officers now are almost overwhelmed with the
volume of outgoing prisoners," says Patrick O'Carroll, the association's executive director.
"If a large amount of prisoners were released in bulk, the probation system would be
overwhelmed."
Will some version of the FIRST STEP Act make it through the Senate and into law? The answer
to that question depends on who you ask, and on which day. Concerns about crime remain a
near-constant in American politics, no matter what data may say about its decline or the
effectiveness of "evidence-based" reentry programs. "I think the instinct is still there to
punish groups harshly," says Kevin Ring, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums.
Some conservative senators are pushing for changes to the bill to make it seem less "soft."
Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has praised the goals of the House bill but argues
strongly against cutting sentences or giving judges more discretion. "That foolish approach is
not criminal-justice reform -- it's a jailbreak," he wrote in The Wall Street Journal in
August.
Such opposition is why it's been tough to craft a compromise that adds sentencing changes to
the House bill without endangering its passage in both the House and Senate. The final product
is expected to be less ambitious than the Senate bill that failed under Obama. "Some of the
legislation in play in that period was more aggressive," says Cohen, the Right on Crime
director. "Also, it sends a very strong signal that the president has put so much political
capital behind this."
Trump isn't waiting for Congress to act. In March, he launched the Federal Interagency
Council on Crime Prevention and Improving Reentry, directing a dozen cabinet departments and
agencies to come up with strategies to address problems such as poverty, drug addiction and
lack of educational and job opportunities, by way of improving the prospects for ex-cons. "To
further improve public safety, we should aim not only to prevent crime in the first place, but
also to provide those who have engaged in criminal activity with greater opportunities to lead
productive lives," Trump wrote in his executive order.
A week after the House passed its bill, Trump met in the Oval Office with Kim Kardashian
West, the reality TV star. Commentators on the Left had a collective meltdown over the
encounter, with The New Yorker calling it "a nightmare we can't wake up from." It turned
out that Kardashian wasn't there to discuss ratings or chat about her husband Kanye West's
pro-Trump tweets a month earlier.
She instead asked the president to grant clemency to Alice Johnson, a 63-year-old
great-grandmother who'd been serving a life sentence since 1996 on a nonviolent drug offense. A
few days later, Trump commuted Johnson's sentence. In a statement, the White House said that
Johnson "has been a model prisoner" over the past two decades, had worked hard to rehabilitate
herself, and acted as a mentor to other inmates.
"I thought Kim Kardashian was great because she brought Alice to my attention," Trump said.
"We are looking at literally thousands of names of people that have come to our attention that
have been treated unfairly or where their sentence is far too long."
After pledging so often to put people away, Trump has come to recognize that under the right
circumstances, it's better to let some people out.
Alan Greenblatt, former reporter for Congressional Quarterly and NPR, writes about
politics and policy for Governing magazine. This article was supported by a grant from
the R Street Institute.
Two disgraced Enron executives, founder Kenneth Lay and former CEO Jeffrey Skilling , were found guilty on all six counts and 19
of 28 counts, respectively. Both face lengthy prison terms.
Where they will serve their time can be almost as important as how much time they'll do, says Alan Ellis, a former president of
the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Ellis now specializes in the defense of white-collar offenders.
Although criminals don't get to choose their prisons, they can make requests. And assuming their desired location matches their
security classification, as defined by the Bureau of Prisons--minimum, low, medium or high--and has space available, requests are
often honored.
Often, but not always. Take the case of Samuel Waksal , the former
ImClone Systems CEO, who requested to serve his seven-year sentence at Eglin Federal Prison Camp in Florida. (Eglin was once considered
so cushy that the term "Club Fed" was actually coined to describe it. It was recently closed.) Instead, Waksal was shipped off to
the Schuylkill Federal Correctional Institute in Minersville, Pa., which did not make our list.
And the fates of crooked corporate titans like former
Tyco Chief Executive Dennis Kozlowski and Adelphia founder John Rigas can hardly be encouraging either. Kozlowski will serve up
to 25 years of hard time in a New York state prison, while Rigas, who is free pending an appeal, was sentenced to 15 years in the
can.
The days of "Club Fed"--think golf courses and lobster bakes--are long gone. But minimum security facilities, known as federal
prison camps, are the best suited for disgraced CEOs and other white-collar criminals. In theory, inmates in these camps show no
risk of violence or escape. Both shoe-mogul Steven Madden and Martha Stewart are FPC alums.
Why are prison camps the way to go, if you must go at all? Among other perks, federal prison camps have a relatively low staff-to-inmate
ratio, dormitory-style accommodations and little to no fencing. In fact, inmates could walk away from these camps. Few do, however,
because recaptured inmates face severe consequences.
While some of the minimum security facilities still stand on their own, it is increasingly common to have camps lie adjacent to
larger and more secure institutions, particularly low-security federal correctional institutions.
"It used to be that those freestanding facilities were considered to be more relaxed," says David Novak, a former
Microsoft
consultant who served time in a federal prison camp for mail fraud. "The differences now really come down to convenience for family,
weather and things of that nature."
Ellis says the quality of life among staff members also can make one prison more pleasant than another. "Happier staff makes for
happier inmates," he says.
To determine which prisons are the best places to serve time, we turned to the man who wrote the guidebook, literally. Ellis has
written several editions of the Federal Prison Guidebook , which profiles each of the nation's 178 federal prisons.
Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always
exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials. Download his
article on the topic at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf... .
Browder sped up the making of DoNotPay by creating a bot builder for himself to quickly drag
and drop documents and automate bot creation. Then, he recruited volunteer and part-time
lawyers to help him with the legal aspect of the tool. To deal with the differences between
state laws, he had to work with lawyers and charities to make locality-specific bots and detect
the user's location to show only relevant local bots.
You can type in questions like "I got an unfair parking ticket," or requests for legal
compensation from an airline or reporting discrimination, for a total of 1,000 different
categories, although results only pop up for certain keywords. If the chatbot successfully
directs you to the appropriate issue, it can then generate an appeal letter for you that you
can sign and print.
The letters include language like "I believe that the court should exercise fairness in
cancelling a ticket that...is perfectly justified to be cancelled," and "I feel that the issue
of a ticket is an unlawful action inconsistent with precedent." But if you stump the bot, it
triggers a prompt: "Need extra help?" It then provides a rather unhelpful link back to
Google.
(theverge.com)
79BeauHD on Wednesday July 12,
2017 @05:30PM from the free-strongly-worded-letters dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report
from The Verge:
A chatbot that provides free legal counsel using AI is
now
available in all 50 states starting today. This is following its success in New York,
Seattle, and the UK, where it was invented by British entrepreneur Joshua Browder. Browder, who
calls his invention "the world's first robot lawyer," estimates the bot has helped defeat
375,000 parking tickets in a span of two years. Browder, a junior at Stanford University, tells
The Verge via Twitter that his chatbot could potentially experience legal repercussions from
the government, but he is more concerned with competing with lawyers.
"The legal industry is more than a 200 billion dollar industry, but I am excited to make
the law free," says Browder. "Some of the biggest law firms can't be happy!" Browder believes
that his chatbot could also save government officials time and money. "Everybody can win," he
says, "I think governments waste a huge amount of money employing people to read parking ticket
appeals. DoNotPay
sends it to them in a clear and easy to read format."
Ted Cruz's Long Sellout on Criminal Justice ReformOnce an innovator on this
issue, he's descended into authoritarian fearmongering. By Jack Hunter •
October 10, 2018
When Cruz's
competitive Democratic opponent, Congressman Beto O'Rourke,
spoke to a
historic black church last month in Dallas, he said, "How can it be, in this day and age,
in this very year, in this community, that a young man, African American, in his own apartment,
is shot and killed by a police officer?"
O'Rourke continued, "And when we all want justice and the facts and the information to make
an informed decision, what's released to the public? That he had a small amount of marijuana in
his kitchen."
O'Rourke was referring to Botham Shem Jean
, a black Dallas man who was shot in his own apartment by a police officer who thought she had
entered her own residence. The shooting happened a mere week prior to O'Rourke's church speech.
The circumstances of the killing, along with police thinking it was somehow necessary for the
public to know that Jean had a
small amount of pot in his home, captivated the country across ideological lines.
"How can that be just in this country?" O'Rourke asked. "How can we continue to lose the
lives of unarmed black men in the United States of America at the hands of white police
officers?" He continued, "That is not justice. That is not us. That can and must change."
But Ted Cruz is apparently no longer on board. Cruz instead tweeted a video of O'Rourke's
speech, adding, "In O'Rourke's own words," seeming to condemn his language.
What is remotely wrong with O'Rourke's "own
words" there? They were spot-on, and the questions he asked the church audience were par for
the course for anyone, right or left, who advocates for criminal justice reform and against
police brutality.
What Cruz meant in his tweet can perhaps be gleaned from his reaction to O'Rourke's call for
the officer who shot Jean to be fired. "I wish Beto O'Rourke and Democrats weren't so quick to
always blame the police officer," Cruz
said .
O'Rourke was right to call for the
officer's firing . How many times have conservative Republicans called for government
bureaucrats to be fired for basic incompetence? (And they should!) A government agent who
happens to wear a badge unquestionably deserves due process but not special treatment.
This shift by Cruz hasn't gone unnoticed.
"
Bipartisan criminal justice reform casualty of Cruz campaign " read the headline in a
Thursday editorial of the Houston Chronicle . "All candidates have to make sacrifices
on the path to Election Day," said the staff editorial. "U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has decided to
sacrifice criminal justice reform, and that's a real shame."
It continued:
While they may address the issues from different perspectives, Democrats and Republicans
have worked together in fighting mass incarceration and refocusing efforts toward
rehabilitation. Part of this cooperation included an unspoken detente on scaremongering and
race-baiting campaigns. Without the fear of cheap attacks, politicians and policymakers have
been free to discuss the failings of our criminal justice system in stark, earnest terms . In
his campaign for re-election, Cruz has shattered that truce. He has targeted otherwise
bipartisan rhetoric about criminal justice reform as the subject for convenient campaign
season attacks.
Unfortunately, this was but the latest example of Cruz turning away from the criminal
justice reform positions he once advocated.
A year ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley condemned a sentencing
reform bill backed by Ted Cruz as "lenient" and "dangerous." Eight months later, it was
Cruz's turn. Explaining his opposition to a sentencing reform bill backed by Grassley, Cruz
described it as dangerously lenient.
When the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Grassley's bill by a 3-to-1 margin in
October, Cruz joined four other Republicans in voting no. The Texas senator -- once a leading
Republican critic of excessively harsh criminal penalties, especially for nonviolent drug
offenders -- had effectively traded places with Grassley, a law-and-order Iowa Republican who
has long resisted efforts to reduce those penalties.
"It is hard to escape the impression that Cruz, who is running second to Donald Trump in the
race for the Republican presidential nomination and has a good shot at winning the Iowa caucus
on Monday, decided to abandon a cause that might alienate conservative primary voters," Sullum
concluded.
Obviously this political calculation did not pan out well for Cruz in the 2016 presidential
primaries.
Though the increasingly popular O'Rourke is a talented politician, conservatives should hope
that Republicans keep control of the Senate in the midterms and a Cruz victory next
month would likely play a role in that outcome.
But part of what has made Beto O'Rourke formidable against Cruz in deep red Texas, or at
least
more competitive than anyone would have expected, is that the liberal Democrat comes across
as authentic .
He sticks to his
progressive guns under pressure.
Before the rise of
Donald Trump , Cruz was viewed by much of the GOP base as one of the most authentic
conservative champions in the Republican party. It was a brand that once included, however
significant or insignificant, his more libertarian
than authoritarian stance on criminal justice reform.
By flip-flopping on what is still mostly an under-the-radar issue with general voters, the
Texas senator is unlikely to pick up any more votes from law-and-order Republicans than he
would have otherwise.
Somewhere between the creation of the Magna Carta and now, leftists have forgotten why due
process matters; and in some cases, such as that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, they choose to
outright ignore the judicial and civil rights put in place by the U.S. Constitution.
In this age of social media justice mobs, the accused are often convicted in the court of
public opinion long before any substantial evidence emerges to warrant an investigation or
trial. This is certainly true for Kavanaugh. His accuser, Christine
Blasey Ford , cannot recall the date of the alleged assault and has no supporting
witnesses, yet law professors are ready to ruin his entire life and career. Not because they
genuinely believe he's guilty, but because he's a pro-life Trump nominee for the Supreme
Court.
It goes without saying: to "sink Kavanaugh even if" Ford's allegation is untrue is
unethical, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. He has a right to due process, and before
liberals sharpen their pitchforks any further they would do well to remember what happened to
Brian Banks.
In the summer of 2002, Banks was a highly recruited 16-year-old linebacker at Polytechnic
High School in California with plans to play football on a full scholarship to the University
of Southern California. However, those plans were destroyed when Banks's classmate, Wanetta
Gibson, claimed that Banks had dragged her into a stairway at their high school and raped
her.
Gibson's claim was false, but it was Banks's word against hers. Banks had two options: go to
trial and risk spending 41 years-to-life in prison, or take a plea deal that included five
years in prison, five years probation, and registering as a sex offender. Banks accepted the
plea deal under the counsel of his lawyer, who
told him that he stood no chance at trial because the all-white jury would "automatically
assume" he was guilty because he was a "big, black teenager."
Gibson and her mother subsequently sued the Long Beach Unified School District and won a
$1.5 million settlement. It wasn't until nearly a decade later, long after Banks's promising
football career had already been tanked, that Gibson admitted she'd fabricated the entire
story.
Following Gibson's confession, Banks was exonerated with the help of the California
Innocence Project . Hopeful to get his life back on track, he played for Las Vegas
Locomotives of the now-defunct United Football League in 2012, and signed with the Atlanta
Falcons in 2013. But while Banks finally received justice, he will never get back the years or
the prospective pro football career that Gibson selfishly stole from him.
Banks's story is timely, and it serves as a powerful warning to anyone too eager to condemn
those accused of sexual assault. In fact, a film about Banks's ordeal, Brian Banks , is set to
premiere at the Los Angeles Film Festival next week.
Perhaps all the #MeToo Hollywood elites and their liberal friends should attend the
screening - and keep Kavanaugh in their minds as they watch.
Reaper , 2 minutes ago
False charges were condemned by Moses 3200 years ago. We need his solution: the false
accusser suffers the penalty they desired on ther falsely accused.
If not always fair or flexible, it seems efficient – no attorneys collecting large fees
in a justice system designed to enrich attorneys. A shyster attorney that I had the
unfortunate experience in working with, did tell the truth once when he said that there is no
such thing as a justice system but there is a legal industry.
From comments: "In short, false inquiry into imaginary collusion hands down pseudo-indictments for quasi-obstruction of
fraudulent justice based on fake news reported by mock journalists quoting fictitious sources leaking fabricated stories about
made-up events about the false inquiry into imaginary collusion. " Papadopolous lied to hide the fact that the
Trump tower meeting was intended as an entrapment to make Trump look like he was colluding - and even having TAKEN that meeting,
it remains undisclosed to the public what information might have been considered 'dirt' that would be regarded as illegal for a
political opponent to use or disclose
Trump's former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos was sentenced to 14 days
in jail, the first campaign official to be sentenced as part of Robert Mueller's probe into
Russian election interference. Papadopoulos was sentenced to one year of supervised release,
200 hours of community service and a $9,500 fine.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in October
2017 to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Russia nationals and efforts
to arrange a meeting with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
During the sentencing, Papadopoulos' lawyer told the judge that he was motivated to lie in
part by Trump characterizing investigation as "Fake news."
Imxploring ,
First rule in dealing with the FBI or law enforcement.... Say NOTHING! When they come
calling to talk to you they are trying to lock you up.... and if they want to "talk"... they
don't have enough to do so.... don't give it to them!
haruspicio ,
I have just been through this is another country. Just give a no comment interview and
make sure you have a lawyer by your side before even opening your mouth to answer a question
from a cop.
Golden Phoenix ,
This is why you should never say anything to police or other investigators. They'll entrap
you, twist your words, and suddenly an otherwise innocent person is convicted of a purely
procedural crime.
Justapleb ,
This carried the flag for Russian Collusion a year ago, how Papadopoulus had been
"flipped" and was "cooperating" with the Mueller investigation.
What happens after they "flip" former Trump people and they start "cooperating"? Nothing.
Because there is no crime even coherently stated pertaining to Russia. "Colluding" is not a
crime.
God what convoluted potempkin show trials.
Davidduke2000 ,
hillary lied and lied and lied and lied to the FBI, CIA, NSA and everybody in the
intelligence and law enforcement agencies and got zero days in jail.
pparalegal ,
Not hard when your co-conspirators are all given pre-immunity and you are given the
questions beforehand. And because the loudest, smartest woman in the world always says "I
don't recall".
RICKYBIRD ,
Let's not forget that an FBI contract "lure" met George in Europe and hired George to do
some work for him. Gave George $10,000 in marked bills. The object was to dirty George up,
maybe even claim he was paid by a Russian agent. When shortly thereafter George arrived in
the US, before he could go to Customs the FBI stopped him. They thought they'd catch him with
the bills. They didn't. George had left them behind in Europe. Tough luck, FBI.
bh2 ,
The lesson this teaches is the one every defense attorney advises to his clients: "never
speak to the police".
All these brain-dead prosecutions accomplish is to confirm those defense attorneys are
correct.
In the wake of the federal criminal conviction of former Trump official Paul Manafort and
the guilty plea in federal court of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, the mainstream press is
singing the praises of special prosecutor (and former FBI Director) Robert Mueller and the
Justice Department.
In the process, Trump's critics are condemning his denunciation of "flipping," the process
by which federal prosecutors offer a sweet deal to criminal defendants in return for testifying
against a "higher-up" who the feds are also prosecuting. The press and the anti-Trumpsters say
that such a practice is part of the "rule of law" and essential to the proper administration of
justice.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever else might be said about Trump, he is
absolutely right on this point. The process of offering sweetheart deals to people in return
for their "cooperation" to get someone else convicted has long been one of the most corrupt
aspects of the federal criminal-justice system, especially as part of the federal government's
much-vaunted (and much-failed) war on drugs.
Suppose a federal criminal defendant contacts a prospective witness in a case and offers him
$50,000 in return for his "cooperation" in his upcoming trial. The money will be paid as soon
as the trial is over. The defendant makes it clear that he wants the witness to "tell the
truth" but that his "cooperation" when he testifies at trial would be greatly appreciated.
What would happen if federal officials learned about that communication and offer? They
would go ballistic. They would immediately secure an indictment for bribery and witness
tampering.
What if the defendant says, "Oh, no, I wasn't tampering with the witness. I specifically
told him that I wanted him to tell the truth when he took the witness stand. I was just seeking
his friendly 'cooperation' with my $50,000 offer to him."?
It wouldn't make a difference. Federal prosecutors would go after him with a vengeance on
bribery and witness-tampering charges. And it is a virtual certainty that they would get a
conviction.
There is good reason for that. The law recognizes that the money could serve as an
inducement for the witness to lie. Even though the defendant tells him to "tell the truth," the
witness knows that the fifty grand is being paid to him to help the defendant get acquitted,
especially since it is payable after the trial is over. The temptation to lie, in return for
the money, becomes strong, which is why the law prohibits criminal defendants from engaging in
this type of practice.
Suppose a federal prosecutor says to a witness, "You are facing life in prison on the
charges we have brought against you. But if you 'cooperate' with us to get John Doe, we will
adjust the charges so that the most the judge can do is send you to jail for only 5 years at
most. If you are really 'cooperative,' we will recommend that the judge give you the lowest
possible sentence, perhaps even probation. Oh, one more thing, we want to make it clear that we
do want you to tell the truth."
Do you see the problem? The temptation to please the prosecutor with "cooperation" becomes
tremendous. If the witness can help secure a conviction of Doe, he stands to get a much lighter
sentence for his successful "cooperation." The inducement to commit perjury oftentimes takes
over, notwithstanding the prosecutor's admonition to the witness to "tell the truth."
Defenders of this corrupt process say that without it, prosecutors could never get
convictions. That's pure nonsense. For one thing, prosecutors can secure a conviction against
the witness and then force him to testify once his case is over. That's because a person whose
case is over is unable to rely on the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying in the case against
John Doe.
Moreover, the prosecutor can give what is called "use immunity" to the witness, which then
forces him to testify in the case against Doe. Use immunity is not full immunity from
prosecution. It simply means that the prosecutor cannot use the witness's testimony against Doe
to convict the witness at his trial. The prosecutor must convict him with other evidence.
But even if it means that the prosecutor is unable to secure some convictions, the question
has to be asked: Do we want prosecutors securing convictions in this way? After all, there is a
related question that must be asked: How many innocent people are convicted by perjured
testimony from a witness who is doing his best to "cooperate" with the prosecution in the hope
of getting a lighter sentence?
Given all the accolades being accorded Mueller, it is a shame that he has chosen to go down
the same corrupt road that all other federal prosecutors have traveled. He didn't have to do
that. He could have led the way out of this immoral morass by taking a firm and public stand
against this corrupt procedure. The fact that he has chosen instead to participate in it is a
shame, to say the least.
"In a real rule of law world Jeff Sessions would take all this evidence the VIPS have produced and present it into the Mueller
Investigation as just that evidence, or proof of lack there of. "
In a real rule of law world Jeff Sessions would probably been fired for prosecutorial misconduct early on in his career and
would never have been elected senator. As it stands in the US, such venal people as Sessions are rewarded for their misconduct
as prosecutors with elected office. In Sessions' case, he was further rewarded with appointment to the position of Attorney General,
when he shouldn't be an attorney at all.
Reply
Tom Welsh , August 14, 2018 at 9:00 am
The USA is said to be a "rule of law" nation. Of course that is an outrageous lie. The USA is a "rule of money" nation. Money
trumps everything, including law.
"... If I were a juror, I would completely discount Gates testimony. He doesn't have any credibility in my eyes. I would keep questioning his motivations in light of knowing that he lied, falsified, embezzled and committed other financial crimes. ..."
"... Of course I would also question the motivation of the prosecutor. Why these charges now after a decade when the crimes are alleged to have occurred. ..."
On Monday, 13 August 2018, the prosecutors from "special counsel" Robert Mueller's group
rested the government's criminal case against Paul Manafort [1]. At this point in the
procedural context of the trial, the defendant can make a "motion for a judgment of acquittal"
[2]. The word "motion" in a civil or criminal case means a request to the judge for some action
or relief. By its name, this motion asks the judge to order an acquittal -- the equivalent of a
finding of "not guilty" -- because the government has not put on evidence that proves each
"element" of each crime that is charged against Manafort. The charges are set forth in the
document filed in court by the prosecuting authority at the start of the case called an
"indictment". That paper can be amended or changed as the case moves along before trial by what
is usually called a "superseding indictment", which takes the place of the one filed before
it.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal. In part--
"(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the
close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of
acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The
court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If
the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's
evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.
"(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the
trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the
jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a
verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves
decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was
reserved."
The indictment against Manafort is 37 pages long, but for purposes of a motion for judgment
of acquittal, what matters are pages 27-35, which are supposed to state the wording of each
criminal law that has allegedly been violated [3]. By tradition in federal court, usually an
indictment will have the citations to each criminal offense alleged listed at the beginning,
and that is done here on pages 1-2. When it was filed in February 2018, it made allegations
against both Manafort and Richard W. Gates III, but as is known, Gates made a plea bargain that
same month and has testified against Manafort in this trial [4]. In order to analyze a criminal
case before and during a trial, you take each crime charged as a "count" of the indictment, and
check it against the citation of the crime as defined by Congress in the federal criminal law.
Then, you break it up into "elements", which are separate phrases and sentences that you can
see will stand alone as items that must be proven by the government (or State), which when put
back together track the language of each offense. You make up your own outline or chart or grid
that separates out the language of each crime into the elements, and then you can keep track of
the evidence that is introduced during the trial to see if enough has been presented to prove
each element of each individual charge. The government will also have to prove that enough of
the indictment took place in the geographical area where it is filed, called a "federal
district". That issue is called "venue". Furthermore, proof has to be presented of calendar
dates that show that the indictment was filed within the time period allowed after the alleged
crime took place, which is the "statute of limitations". Most crimes include a time period in
which charges must be filed after the offense happened, or else the person cannot be charged at
all. A crime can also have no time limit in which a charge has to be filed, the usual example
being murder, which normally has no statute of limitations.
Judge T.S. Ellis III and his law clerks will have been watching and checking to see if the
government has presented proper evidence for each element of each offense charged. If proof was
not presented for just one element of one offense, that entire charge will fall and a judgment
of acquittal can be issued by the judge as to that specific count of the indictment. It has
been obvious from media reports about the trial that Judge Ellis has been keeping his eye on
whether some evidence has been presented for each element of each charge, especially when the
crime includes an element of "willfulness". He is also a judge who has the guts to grant a
judgment of acquittal if he thinks it is warranted.
A motion for judgment of acquittal is rarely granted, and so if the request by Manafort is
denied, it will not be surprising. Most judges take the easy way out, deny the motion, and let
the jury decide. If all or part of the indictment survives the motion for judgment of
acquittal, the trial will proceed, and Manafort and his lawyers will decide whether to put on
evidence, or whether they will "rest" without presenting any testimony or other evidence at
all.
If there is time to put a motion for judgment of acquittal in writing, it can be done as to
part or all of the request. Whatever is not in writing can be orally stated in open court and
recorded by the court reporter. In this instance, Manafort's lawyer made an oral motion for a
judgment of acquittal after the prosecution rested, and has filed a supplement and memorandum
in support of the motion relating to counts 29-32 of the indictment--
If I were a juror, I would completely discount Gates testimony. He doesn't have any
credibility in my eyes. I would keep questioning his motivations in light of knowing that he
lied, falsified, embezzled and committed other financial crimes. I would keep coming
back to, do I know with certainty that his testimony is truthful and accurate. Of course
I would also question the motivation of the prosecutor. Why these charges now after a decade
when the crimes are alleged to have occurred.
Bottom line: The "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold is a high bar for me.
Of course, he will be found guilty. The purchase of those NY Yankees seats by Paulus directly
from his offshore accounts nailed the case. But, the case would never have been brought and
the mighty power of the state thrown at him but for his Trump association. Maybe a "fruit of
the poison tree" appeal will be successful or an ultimate pardon in the future awaits him.
But a little known quirk of this case is that Judge Ellis is only the trial judge. The
other judge who has treated him so unfairly is the sentencing judge. She will throw the book
at him.
Comey career was damaged by his treatment of Hillary email scandal and derailing Sanders;
clearly the political role the FBI assumed. So this is a memoir of a politician who happened to
work in law enforcement, and should be treated as such.
An investigation of real Comey role in derailing Sanders and electing Trump still is a matter of the future.
"... Comey is more than willing on several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president. ..."
"... I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have an effect. ..."
"... Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. ..."
"... Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration. Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January 2002. ..."
"... Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. ..."
"... He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and CNN. ..."
"... Before the election Comey said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President" ..."
"... Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the "Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet Comey use it to get a FISA warrant. ..."
"... Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying, protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an investigation. ..."
"... Comey had his issues with the Justice Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. ..."
James Comey is articulate and makes his case in an interesting and effective manner. He
seems competent and well intentioned. Problem is he, like many, considers lying about a crime
a greater crime than the crime. It is not the case. If someone commits murder, is lying about
it worse than the murder?
He rightfully seems horrified that Trump demands loyalty, but Comey is more than willing on
several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the
FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president.
A justification of the Clinton email server investigation and a nonpartisan critique of
Trump's erosion of norms
A skillfully written and affecting memoir. Comey shares formative experiences: suffering a
random attack by a serial home invader as a teenager, being bullied and then bullying, losing
an infant son. There's a lot of detail about his decision to announce the reopening of the
investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server right before the election. Given
that situation as he described it, had I been in his shoes, I can't say for sure what I would
have done. He means to reveal the ethical complexity and he does it well.
He speaks positively of working for President George W. Bush and then for President Obama,
but he has no such appreciation for President Trump. Contradicting longstanding norms of U.S.
government, Trump demanded loyalty from Comey in his nonpartisan, ten-year term as the FBI
Director, and when Comey did not give it unconditionally and did not halt the investigation
into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump fired him. "We had that thing, you
know," Trump said to Comey, referring to the previous conversation in which he had asked for
loyalty. Comey's knowledge of La Cosa Nostra ("that thing of ours," the Mafia's name for
itself) adds a layer of meaning. Comey knows what Mafia guys are like, and he does not live
like them; he is not swayed by appeals to loyalty. That's how he became FBI Director and
that's also how he lost his job under Trump.
"I say this as someone who has worked in law enforcement for most of my life, and served
presidents of both parties. What is happening now," he warns from his new position as a
private citizen, "is not normal. It is not fake news. It is not okay." For those who support
Trump's policy agenda because they believe it will benefit them personally somehow, Comey
delivers a reminder that "the core of our nation is our commitment to a set of shared values
that began with George Washington -- to restraint and integrity and balance and transparency
and truth. If that slides away from us, only a fool would be consoled by a tax cut or a
different immigration policy."
I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would
be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own
political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have
an effect.
If you watch the news at all or read the 1 star reviews by people who appear not
to have read the book you will be led to believe this is a book about Trump, and bashing him,
or outing him as unfit in some way.
Especially if you know that the RNC has gone out of their
way to create a website just ahead of the book release for the sole purpose of Comey bashing.
So let me bust that myth. This is not a book about Trump. There are no big jaw dropping Trump
secrets here.
This is a book about James Comey, from his early childhood until the here and
now. Comey touches on childhood memories, being bullied, later on participating or at least
turning a blind eye to bullyng himself. He speaks on his experience being home alone with his
brother when the "Ramsey Rapist" broke into his house. He tells you how and why he decided to
pursue law as a career instead of becoming a doctor. There are humorous anecdotes about his
first job in the grocery store and yes some about his final days as FBI director. You do not
have to be a fan of Comey or any of his decisions to enjoy this book. You may or may not be
satisfied with his explanation of why he decided to make such public announcements on
Hilary's emails, but that is a small part of this book. Personally I was not satisfied and he
does admit that others may have handled it differently. If you are only looking for
bombshells this book is not for you. By the time it gets to the visit to alert Trump to the
salacious allegations the book is 70% over, because as I said this is not a book about
Trump.
Even if I do not agree with Comey's decisions to publicly give his opinion on one candidate
while withholding the fact that there is an investigation surrounding the other even with the
"classified info" that he says we still do not know about I was still able to enjoy this
book. I agree with his assessment in the last televised interview he gave, that if Comey is
an idiot he is at least an honest idiot.
Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey
Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey starts with sharing an experience of a
time his house was broken in by a robber while his parents were away and he was alone with
Pete. James Comey recounts his investigations of the Mafia. James Comey talks about having
Malaria and thanks his wife Patrice for taking him on the back of her motorcycle to the
Hospital. He mentions his family life and his new born son Collin who passed away in the
hospital after Doctors failed to give Collin treatment while Collin was already showing
abnormal behavior.
Comey goes on to talk about his role as FBI director during the Obama Administration.
He talks about Micheal Brown and how fake news caused a big up roar and hatred on police
by their distortion on what happened in Ferguson and thus caused great divisions.
Comey tries to justify the outcome of not prosecuting what clinton did with her private
email server which had classified government data by saying that even if her actions were bad
though a statute was broken and had lied to FBI officials about having classified information
but she did so carelessly.
He says that the Clinton campaign was calling the criminal investigation surrounding
Hillary Clinton a "matter" and he says that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was strangely
telling him to do the same when confronting the media.
When Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a tarmac he saw it not
as a big deal, though it was after this private meeting that the decision of not prosecuting
Secretary Hillary Clinton was decided . So this shows that the Clinton campaign had influence
on the outcome of the investigation concerning Clinton.
Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen
from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that
Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. Though Wikileaks has
already said that it was not Russia but someone living in the United States who sent the
emails to Wikileaks.
Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey
has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration.
Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the
investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary
Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in
the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January
2002.
Comey mentions the piss dossier as evidence "strongly suggesting that the Russian
government was trying to interfere in the election in 3 ways." He later admits the suppose
"evidence" as "unverifiable", this is the same "dossier" that was used to grant a FISA
warrant to spy on Clinton opponent Donald Trump which was paid by Hillary Clinton and her
campaign.
Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election
and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with
the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support
Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. Again this is all based on the
"unverifiable dossier" , even though the suggested "evidence" is unverifiable a tyrant
Government can use this to justify in going after ANYONE who speaks against the corruption
going within former director James Comey FBI.
He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her
opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why
she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and
CNN.
He says that his family were Hillary supporters and that they attended the "Woman's March"
which was more of a rally in protest to President Trump presidency. Before the election Comey
said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though
the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where
Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President"
Comey goes on to talk about Donald Trump inauguration and as FBI director fails to talk
about the riots and protestors blocking the entrance to the inauguration where they set a
limousine on fire, stores were broken in including a Starbucks. He compares Trump inauguration
to Obama but Obama had no rioters.
Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC
funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was
nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated
Bernie Sanders.
Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the
"Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and
unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet
Comey use it to get a FISA warrant.
Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law
enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying,
protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to
investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an
investigation.
A better title would have been " An American's Highest Loyalty"
This memoir is an important piece in the analysis of turn of the century politics in the
United States. It is unfortunate that the media hype for this book has been about the more
recent turmoil in James Comey's service to his country. True, the Trump administration is
different and in many ways dysfunctional. But it is only in the part of the book, that he
deals with it's dysfunction.
If one reads carefully, President Trump is only a more obvious
and verbal and transparent figure in his disdain for the judiciary and the justice
department. Dick Cheney and others in the Bush 43 administration are portrayed as far more
sinister in their actions to sublimate justice after 9/11.
His admiration for President Obama
is evident and little discussed in the media.
Comey had his issues with the Justice
Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. His
dealings with the Clinton email controversy is well outlined. His dilemma with his
communication regarding his investigation and its reopening was inadequately described in the
book and his naivety that its reopening would not influence the election is remarkable. He
supposes that the average American voter understands how the investigative system and justice
system works.
His demeaning comments about President Trump's physical flaws add nothing to the book. I
can understand why he wrote them in as these kinds of notations sell books. They added
nothing to the story he had to tell. He should have left them out.
I appreciate that he does not give loyalty to a person. What makes America great is that
we are loyal to an idea. Even if we disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution, we
can all be American. His loyalty seems to be to honesty and integrity which is admirable.
However the highest loyalty should be to one's reading of the Constitution. I just wished he
had said it.
"... "Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice ..."
"... Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or not Clinton and her team obstructed justice. ..."
"... "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice." ..."
"... Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?" ..."
Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today on Sun, 04/22/2018 - 9:27pm
From the
' you can't make this shit up ' files. Hillary had been involved in government long enough to know and understand the rules
of what she needed to do with her emails after her tenure was over. As well as the rules for handling classified information with
an email account. But I guess she thought that rules only applied to everyone else but her. And why wouldn't she think that she could
do whatever she wanted to? Because she and Bill had been getting away with doing whatever they wanted their entire political careers
with no repercussions.
Using a private email server that would be a way around the freedom of information act would have also allowed her to put her
foundation's business on it so that Chelsea and others could have access to it even though it was tied into her state department
business and the people who did didn't have the proper security clearances to read the emails. (Sydney Bluementhal) Tut, tut ..
When WTOP's Joan Jones asked former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday if the "smashing of cellphones and destruction of
thousands of emails" during the investigation into Hillary Clinton was "obstruction of justice," Comey said that he had never
been asked that question before.
"You have raised the specter of obstruction of justice charges with the president of the United States," Jones said to Comey
concerning his new book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership." The book was released earlier this week.
"Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation
clearly be obstruction of justice ?'" Jones asked Comey.
Comey replied, "Now that's a great question. That's the first time I've been asked that."
Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice
charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or
not Clinton and her team obstructed justice.
There's that word intent again.
"And the answer is, it would depend upon what the intent of the people doing it was," Comey said. "It's the reason I can't
say when people ask me, 'Did Donald Trump committee obstruction of justice?' My answer is, 'I don't know. It could be. It would
depend upon, is there evidence to establish that he took actions with corrupt intent ?'"
"So if you smash a cellphone, lots of people smash their cellphones so they're not resold on the secondary market and your
personal stuff ends up in somebody else's hands," Comey continued. "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators
want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice."
What about deleting ones emails after being told to turn them over to congress after they found out that you didn't do it when
your job was done. Is this considered obstruction of justice, James? I think that answer is yes. How about backing up your emails
on someone else's computer when some of them were found to be classified?
Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?"
"Yes. It requires not just intent , but the prosecutors demonstrate corrupt intent , which is a special kind of intent
that you were taking actions with the intention of defeating and obstructing an investigation you knew was going on," Comey replied.
Did he just change the rules there? Now it's not just intent, but corrupt intent. This is exactly what Hillary
did, James! She deliberately destroyed her emails after she was told to turn them over to congress, so if you didn't have the chance
to see them l, then how do you know that the ones that she destroyed weren't classified? I would say that qualifies as intent.
But we know that you had a job to protect her from being prosecuted. This is why when the wording was changed from " grossly negligent
" to "extremely careless". you went with the new ones!
BTW, James. Why wasn't Hillary under oath when she was questioned by the other FBI agents? Why didn't you question her
or look at her other computers and cell phones she had at her home? I'd think that they might have shown you something that she didn't
want you to see? One more question, James. Did you ask the NSA to find the deleted emails that she destroyed because she said that
they were just personal ones about Chelsea's wedding? Do you really think that it took 30,000 emails to plan a wedding? Okay, one
more. Did you even think that those emails might have had something to do with her foundation that might have had some incriminating
evidence of either classified information on them or even possible proof of her "pay to play" shenanigans that she was told not to
do during her tenure as SOS? This thought never crossed your mind?
Last question I promise. Did you really do due diligence on investigating her use of her private email server or were you still
covering for her like you have been since she started getting investigated?
This amazing comment came from a person on Common Dreams. It shows the history of
One source told the news outlet that electronic records reveal that Strzok changed the language from " grossly negligent
" to " extremely careless ," scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual
who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for "gross negligence."
What would have happened if Comey had found Hillary guilty of mishandling classified information on her private email server?
She couldn't have become president of course because her security clearances would have been revoked. This makes it kinda hard to
be one if she couldn't have access to top secret information, now wouldn't it?
Have you seen this statement by people who don't think that what Hillary did when she used her private email server was wrong
and that's why some people didn't vote for her and Trump became president because of it?
Across the country, correctional facilities are struggling with the reality that they have
become the nation's de facto mental healthcare providers, although they are hopelessly
ill-equipped for the job. They are now contending with tens of thousands of people with mental
illness who, by some counts, make up as much as half
of their populations .
Little acknowledged in public debate, this situation is readily apparent in almost every
correctional facility in the country. In Michigan, roughly half of all people in county jails
have a mental illness, and nearly a quarter of people in state prisons do. In 2016, the state
spent nearly $4m on psychiatric medication for state prisoners. In Iowa about a third of people
in prison have a serious mental illness; another quarter have a chronic mental health
diagnosis.
Meanwhile, nearly half of the people executed nationwide between 2000 and 2015 had been
diagnosed with a mental illness and/or substance use disorder in their adult lives. When a
legal settlement required California to build a psychiatric unit on its death row at San
Quentin the 40 beds were filled immediately.
The
mental health crisis is especially pronounced among women prisoners: one study by the US
Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 75% of women incarcerated in jails and prisons had a
mental illness, as compared with just over 60% and 55% of men, respectively. A more recent
study showed that 20% of women in jail and 30% in prison had experienced "serious psychological
distress" in the month before the survey, compared with 14% and 26% of men, respectively.
Although the overall number of people behind bars in the US has decreased in recent years,
the proportion of prisoners with mental illness has continued to go up. In 2010, about 30% of
people at New York's Rikers Island jail had a mental illness; in 2014, the figure rose to 40% ,
and by 2017, it had gone up to 43%. Studies of the most frequently arrested people in New York,
Los Angeles and elsewhere have found that they are far more likely than others to have mental
illness, to require antipsychotic medications while incarcerated and to have a substance use
problem.
That there are so many people with mental illness locked in our jails and prisons is but one
piece of the crisis. Along with race and poverty, mental illness has become a salient feature
of mass incarceration, one that must be accounted for in any discussion about criminal justice
reform.
Mental illness affects every aspect of the criminal justice system, from policing to the
courts to prisons and beyond. Nor are the effects limited to the criminal justice system; many
people with mental illness cycle back and forth between jail or prison and living in the
community.
The racial inequity of the criminal justice system has been widely noted: it is estimated
that one out of every three African American men and one of every six Hispanic men born in 2001
will be arrested in their lifetimes.
But for Americans with serious mental illness, it is estimated that as many as one in two
will be arrested at some point in their lives. It's not just arrests. One in four of the nearly
1,000 fatal police shootings in 2016 involved a person with mental illness, according to a
study by the Washington Post. The Post estimated that mental illness was a factor in a quarter
of fatal police shootings in 2017, too.
People with mental illness are among the most disadvantaged members of our society, and when
they end up in the criminal justice system, they tend to fare worse than others. People with
mental illness are less likely to make bail and more likely to face longer sentences. They are
more likely to end up in solitary confinement, less likely to make parole and more likely to
commit suicide.
Yet jail and prison have become, for many people, their primary means of getting mental
healthcare. Their experiences offer an especially eye-opening view of a criminal justice system
that today houses more than two million people and costs us hundreds of billions of dollars a
year.
Western society is flirting with a disturbing trend where people are being denied the
time-honored 'presumption of innocence'. The same undemocratic method is even being used
against nations in what is becoming a dangerous game.
Imagine the following scenario: You are a star football player at the local high school,
with a number of college teams hoping to recruit you. There is even talk of a NFL career down
the road. Then, overnight, your life takes an unexpected turn for the worse. The police show up
at your house with a warrant for your arrest; the charges: kidnapping and rape. The only
evidence is your word against the accuser's. After spending six years behind bars, the court
decides you were wrongly accused.
That is the incredible
story of Brian Banks, 26, who was released early from prison in 2012 after his accuser,
Wanetta Gibson, admitted that she had fabricated injurious claims against the young man.
Many other innocent people, however, who have been falsely accused in the West for some
crime they did not commit, are not as fortunate as Brian Banks. Just this week, for example,
Ross Bullock was released from his private "hell" – and not due to an accuser with a
guilty conscience, but by committing suicide.
"After a 'year of torment' Bullock hanged himself in the garage of the family home,
leaving a note revealing he had 'hit rock bottom' and that with his death 'I'm free from this
living hell,'" the Daily Mail
reported .
There is a temptation to explain away such tragic cases as isolated anomalies in an
otherwise sound-functioning legal system. After all, mistakes are going to happen regardless of
the safeguards. At the same time, however, there is an irresistible urge among humans to
believe those people who claim to have been victimized – even when the evidence suggests
otherwise. Perhaps this is due to the powerful emotional element that works to galvanize the
victim's story. Or it could be due to the belief that nobody would intentionally and unjustly
condemn another human being. But who can really say what is inside another person's heart?
Moreover, it can't be denied that every time we attempt to hunt down and punish another people,
tribe, sex, religion, etc. for some alleged crimes against victims, there is a real tendency
among Westerners to get carried away with moralistic zeal to the point of fanaticism.
A case in point is last year's scandal that rocked the entertainment industry as the movie
mogul Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexually assaulting numerous women over the span of a
30-year career. Eventually, over 80 females, emboldened by the courage displayed by their
peers, drove Weinstein straight out of Hollywood and into the rogue's gallery of sexual
predators. Few could deny this was a positive thing.
But then something strange began to happen that has been dubbed the 'Weinstein effect.'
Powered by the social media #MeToo movement, women from all walks of life began to publicly
accuse men for all sorts of sexual violations, some from decades ago. Certainly, many of the
claims were legitimate. However, in many cases they were not. Yet the mainstream media, which
has taken great delight in providing breathless details of every new accusation, has shown
little interest in pursuing those stories of
men who went on to suffer divorce, ruined reputations, and the loss of jobs without so much as
a fair hearing in a court of law.
As far as the mainstream media is concerned, and to be fair they don't seem that concerned,
the victim's story is the only story that matters. Indeed, it was almost as if the victim had
become judge, jury and executioner. This is, in reality, just one step from mob rule, and woe
to anyone who
questions the motives of the movement, as French star Catherine Deneuve discovered.
The (female) writer, D.C. McAllister, described the poisonous "environment of suspicion"
that has beset relations between men and women.
"While women's willingness to hold men accountable for criminal sexual behavior is to be
applauded, the scorched-earth approach we are seeing today is destructive because it
undermines trust," McAllister wrote in
The Federalist.
"When anything from a naive touch during a photo shoot to an innocent attempt at a kiss is
compared to rape and sexual abuse, we are not healing society but infecting relationships
with the poison of distrust."
At present there is no way of disciplining a retired judge who trades on his former title of
"Judge" and his rank of QC to give advice to lay people (without any up-to-date knowledge of
law or professional indemnity insurance) and then speak on their behalf as a McKenzie Friend
in Court.
I know of a case where this actually happened - a retired Chancery Circuit Judge
intervened in a case involving a religious charity when he has no known connection to the
faith in question. His intervention was distinctly unhelpful for the parties and impeded the
proper administration of justice. But nothing could be done about his unprofessional and
meddling behaviour.
Journalists are not state officials, and do not have the power to imprison citizens. There is
no right to be a judge (so state regulation of judges is legitimate) whereas there is a right
to freedom of speech (so state regulation of journalism is not legitimate).
Judges are lawyers: a rapacious breed drawn predominantly from and representing the "highest"
stratum of society. They are expert at presenting one-sided arguments, whatever the facts and
evidence. They provide "blue chip justice" favouring that social segment that can afford to
hire lawyers and so keep the legal sector in work. They know how to wear down complainants
(often of limited means) with unjustified decisions that have to be appealed at every stage
of proceedings. They are assisted by absurb laws which deem them virtually infallible in
jurisdictions such as the Employment Tribunal, where it is, in practice, not an "error of
law" to find something impossible to be true or to make a finding contrary to the weight of
evidence, or without evidential basis (and invariably favouring the employer). Even when an
indefatigable complainant succeeds in an appeal against a rotten judgement, they often find
their case "remitted" for a rehearing before the same biased tribunal or another made up of
the friends and colleagues of the first, and likewise of the employer. Many contributors
here, and all employment lawyers, know this to be true, yet this unjust system persists. What
criticisms of it there are focus on ultimately minor issues such as whether one should have
to pay fees to lodge complaints, rather than the more important issue of its institutional
racialism and the virtual impossibility of Black people being successful in complaints
against members of the establishment within it.
You also need to remember that judges work within a system which is controlled by politics,
press start complaining about high number of car thefts, car thieves suddenly start getting
jailed while house breakers do not.
There are also other parts of the system for instance social work reports, often made
about people who know the systems inside out, know exactly what to say and when to say it.
Lawyers who are simply there to lie, on both sides of the case with full knowledge they are
doing it. Police who are more concerned about getting results than actually justice. And
finally the judges themselves who all appear to have totally different interpretations of the
law, I have seen grown men break down when they find out they are getting 1 judge over
another and that was just the lawyers.
Judicial lies are far from confined to racism-motivated instances. The whole system of
"justice" is the biggest scam on the planet. That's why they don't allow recording of your
own hearing.
The judiciary regularly get away with complete and utter cheap lies in their judgments. They
are unaccountable as it only takes two more judges to refuse permission to challenge the lies
and that's the end of the matter. In one of my cases I asked to audio-record (my own case).
Both the judge and government barrister insisted I would not be alllowed to record. The
reason for this refusal of recording is so that there is no record of the filthy lies judges
deploy in the smaller civil court rooms where there are no reporters. One important subset of
lies is about the limitation act. Supposedly fact means possibility, knowledge means
suspicion, and was means might be - well that's what high court judges say these words mean,
and the fact that loads of dictionaries say otherwise is of no power against them.
We need every litigant to have the right to record their own cases.
And perhaps that needs review. After all, they are all members of same brotherhood or
society, and all operate from under Londons Bar .So is no independence at all.
My recent experience of JCIO is not entirely sanguine. I represented myself in a child
custody case in Birmingham. The Cafcass favored my child to stay with me. The Circuit Judge
presiding over the case, lied in his judgment three times in order to favor my ex. When I
took the matter to the appeal in High Court, the Law Lord presiding practically said that
because the Circuit Judge is experienced, he is entitled to lie. I was quite gobsmacked. JCIO
were completely unmoved by my protestations. It is apparent that truth is diminished if you
are a layman fighting the excesses of establishment.
The internet is awash with people who have been unfairly treated by the Justice system. Court
observers have commented on the familiarity between Judges and business men in employment
tribunal cases, and the employee losing, and also losing an appeal. Has anybody ever tried to
get an employment judge's notes from the case? Impossible. Ultimately when the judge says the
notes are not to be released under any circumstances (why not if they have nothing to hide)
and the Trbunal President when asked under a data protection request, tells you that the data
controller, is, yes the original judge who won't release them under any circumstances, is it
any wonder that people have no faith in the British Justice system, or should we rename it
Old Boys Network system?
The corrupt protecting the corrupt!
I refer to the Porton Down cover-up that involved the killing of 39 Porton Down veterans who
died as a result of being injected with a bacteria derived from salmonella - abortus equi -
in an altered state. (source FOI) Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs (unlike Judge Brian
Kennedy QC) who ordered details of the deaths to be made public) did purposely support the
MoD by allowing them to keep secret ALL facts related to the killings. Judge Edward Jacobs
also ignored a 3.72 million pounds fraudulent payment (stolen from public funds) awarded to
Martyn Day Senior Partner with the London law firm Leigh Day & Co. It was Martyn Day who
supposedly represented 39 family members of deceased veterans. In effect Jacobs by his very
silence and by allowing crimes of this nature to be kept under wraps did himself become party
to the crime.
"The comments in this section so far could hardly be more wrong" I don't know, I though
Patrick Logicman was spot on with his "But then you couldn't tell them from janitors" remark
above.
Yes but in the midst of the usual press anarchy, a few wise words from Joshua are surely not
out of order?
The predilection of cheap jack town magistrates describing themselves as Judges, takes
some beating. The powers of local authorities to press their own non-criminal "charges" can
be rather unpleasant, and quite happy to present fictitious evidence in abundance, backed up
by such "judges".
If you review most Laws in Britain,USA Canada,etc they were enacted worded and favored the
very rich and property owners when passed. Judge`s hands are really tied to the laws of the
land and it is the rich bias and regulations that keep the poor in their place that Judges
are restricted by when looking to dispense justice [as far as the law allows].
Same applies to the Police they didn`t make the laws.The Justice system and the Police
have been deliberately kept apart from society so they identify more with conservatism and
the status quo and even identify with it as elitists.
The difference is that the father needs to be suspended in case the allegations prove to be
true, because something important is alleged. Here the allegations against the judges seem to
be about nothing - nothing obviously wrong has happened even if the facts are true.
In my experience of the judiciary in criminal trials is that they do have a tendency to
protect the Police and even on the odd occasion pervert the course of justice to protect
them. You cannot assume that any judge will be impartial in any case or inquiry especially if
police corruption is being investigated or has been alleged. In my view you trust a judge to
be independent and impartial at your own risk.
Suspending a judge from duty pending investigation is rather like a judge confining a
separated father to a supervised contact centre while his ex's phony allegations are looked
into. All rather unnecessary but what do you do?
My experience of the judiciary convinces me that it functions principally to protect the
establishment. This is perhaps seen most blatantly in the employment tribunal, where judges
make virtually unchallengeable findings of "fact" that contradict incontrovertible evidence
that they simply ignore in order to exculpate defendants in race and religous discrimination
cases. Sometimes they collude with defendants to pervert the course of justice by accepting
fabricated documents as genuine, despite the existence of the genuine documents showing their
inauthenticity (which they do not mention as they are irreconcilable with the documents that
they wish to represent as genuine). Sometimes, they make important findings based on key
documents that they have never seen, which the claimant dispute ever existed and the
defendants claim they have lost. At other times, the judges just simply lie about the
evidence if that is required to discredit the complainant. Such phenomena are well-documented
(e.g.,
http://www.irr.org.uk/news/culture-of-disbelief-why-race-discrimination-claims-fail-in-the-employment-tribunal/).
However, maybe because sex, drugs and death are not involved - and it only affects Blacks,
after all - no-one seems at all interested, no programmes get made about this or articles get
written in the mainstream media even when prominent journalists have the evidence of its
occurrence.
It is a tradition in this country that, freedom of speech notwithstanding, judges do not
respond to attacks on them in the media. This means that we often hear the attack, but not
the defence. Let me illustrate this with an example from history which shows that judges can
be right, even when non-lawyers think they are obviously wrong.
If the media and some members of Parliament had got their own way, Mr. Justice Grantham
would have been sacked after instructing a jury in strong terms that a prison warder charged
with manslaughter, against whom the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, was nevertheless not
guilty. It transpired about two years later that the single prosecution witness had lied: the
"victim" was dead before the warder entered the room. I understand that the warder was named
Mitchell and, despite being acquitted, did not get his job back.
Had Mr. Justice Grantham been sacked he could not have investigated the Adolph Beck case, the true facts
might never have come out and we might still not have a criminal appeals process.
"The credit for resolving this miscarriage of justice lay firstly with the 1904 trial
judge, Mr Justice Grantham, who had lingering doubts about Beck's guilt and had delayed
concluding the case despite apparently strong prosecution evidence and procedures. It was in
this period of delay, before being sentenced, that the crucial arrest of the real offender
took place."
Source - historybytheyard.co.uk
Each? But then you couldn't tell a judge from a janitor. They tried that in China. It
didn't work. Call me old-fashioned, but I rather like the wigs and gowns.
The comments in this section so far could hardly be more wrong. Perhaps self-regulation does
not work for most professions, but in the case of judges it seems to "over-work" and the
desire to ensure that judges are seen as people of integrity seems to take over at times. On
the basis of JR's article, there seems very clearly to be no substance in the allegations
against either Fulford or Thornton. When normal people face such baseless allegations, the
case is struck out, or a responsible prosecutor stops it. So the impression here is that the
regulator is afraid to be thought to sweeping things under the carpet and so the process
continues - and absurdity is piled onto absurdity when the judges are even suspended from
work in the meantime.
Turenne and Shetreet's book, referred to in the text, notes instances when judges not only
face complaints but actually receive criticism for doing things which others can do and might
even be expected to do. For example, it seems that judges should plead guilty to minor
traffic offences if they are guilty, and should not seek technical ways that might exist to
defeat the charges (ie ways that are not based on the merits of the case). This may be a good
idea, of course, but it further ridicules any notion that the regulator is soft.
I have for many decades thought that most judges are daft old fools, out of touch with
reality. My opinion has been confirmed by many examples.
I'm not up enough with the law to be able to suggest a better alternative, those who know
what they are talking about should do that. However, I was pleased to see the web site linked to in the article ,
which seems to be a small step in the right direction.
Justice and access to it should be a cornerstone of our society - except that in its
current form, it is reduced to a cleverly disguised commodity - whereby the 'truth' /
'justice' can be purchased by paying for expensive lawyers.
This age old practice of letting "professionals" regulate themselves is thankfully in decline
but not quickly enough. They didn't regulate themselves, they protected each other like
brothers in crime. Lawyers, police, bankers, religious institutions, doctors banded together
to give themselves maximum benefit. And the pompous indignation when Joe Public dared to
question them. I have always felt that these groups pulled the wool over our eyes. I laugh at
the term "professional" often they are far from it.
Who is judging the judges?
We know a lot more about judicial complaints than we used to but it remains the case that
judges themselves judge judges
I find it amusing that a journalist in a National Newspaper is writing an article about a
group of self interested people being able to judge themselves.
Who handles complaints about newspapers? I'll give you a clue with a quote fro the Press
Complaints Commission's website:
The Press Complaints Commission is currently in a phase of transition; and it will soon
be replaced by a new structure of independent self-regulation for the newspaper and
magazine industries.
Self-regulation. Sounds a bit like what the judges do.
One of the key elements of the English judiciary is that it is NOT elected. The executive and
legislature are the elected bits and thus the judiciary must defer to them in terms of
law-making and keep to their own province of interpreting the law - true it can be a fuzzy
line at times but it is a hugely important part of the functioning of the rule of law.
Elected judges would be a disaster for many reasons.
What the UK judiciary gets away with is utterly horrifying. That they palm it off as
'isolated cases' is bad enough, but hiding behind the pretence that people 'don't know the
facts' is even worse.
The move to a system of locally elected (ie, accountable) judges is long overdue.
It's an unfortunate irony of the times in which we live that politicians are happy to bask
in the glory of Law & Order when it comes to intensifying punishments for the general
public yet simultaneously nowhere to be found when it comes to prosecuting those who commit
crimes involving corruption, fraud or abuse of power. When ratcheting up the incarceration
rate among minorities, the poor and those living in the nation's crumbling urban ghettos,
they dutifully repeat the same weary, disproved bromides about deterrence while stuffing
their campaign coffers with contributions from one of neoliberalism's most amoral sectors:
the for-profit carceral state.
Generally, then, I would reject such arguments – higher sentences, mandatory
minimums, decreasing the independence of the judiciary to decide on punishments are all
failed policies that have, under the aegis of the War on Drugs, left a trail of destruction,
generational poverty, and heartbreak. When it comes to white-collar crimes, political
corruption and abuse of power, though, I suspect that hefty sentences actually would serve as
a deterrent. If the architects of the Global Financial Crisis were currently sitting
alongside Bernie Madoff in Butner (or ADX Florence), you suspect it might cause some of their
successors to think twice about indulging in the same wanton speculation.
If the ghouls of the DoD, Pentagon and intelligence community had found themselves where
they belonged, in the dock, for their gross abuses of power and war crimes following 9/11,
one wonders whether the near-equal ghouls of the Sainted Obama's Administration would have
drawn up their illegal kill lists or celebrated the flouting of international law with quite
such levity.
All of which, of course, means that we won't ever see it happen – but it does make
me think that in some cases it is entirely justified to pursue and forcefully punish those
who break the law. It's just unfortunate that the ones whose punishment would be most
effective in deterring others are the ones who invariably get off scott free.
JEHR
What I don't understand is how Michael Shkreli, CEO, is found guilty of financial fraud against
investors in 2018 but not one CEO of a bank–not Goldman Sachs's CEO, not Citigroup's CEO, not JP Morgan
Chase's CEO, not Wells Fargo's CEO and not Lehman Brothers' CEO–was found guilty of committing Accounting
Control Fraud and/or mortgage fraud after the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-8. Amazing! But there's not
much satisfaction in such a small price to pay for fraud (7 years) that ruins other people's lives
permanently. What is also amazing is that it is not illegal to price a drug out of the reach of most users
just for the sake of making a huge profit!
perpetualWAR
Obama said "actions on Wall Street weren't illegal only immoral." And that set the tone. No one was
going to be found guilty of unlawful actions ..even though what Wall Street conducted was a racketeering
operation.
It's not the legality, or even the morality, it's not being blatantly scoffed at.
Shkreli is a slimy narcissitic toad that used, back stabbed, insulted, and annoyed everyone
which is why he got the shiv; just think of the former head of Wells Fargo, Tim Sloan, who did the
same and not only to his customers, and low level employees, but also to Congress.
Who me robbing you? Really, no, I know nothing I see nothing really! Your eyes, they must be lying
to you! And you're too stupid to see that!
That is why they got nailed. People might not like being robbed, but they really don't like being
insulted in the doing. Had they done the usual mea culpas, faux apologies, and even token restitution
of some kind, one would not be in prison, and the other still CEO.
DHG
Shkreli stupidly challenged the powers that be in public to do something and they did.
Andrew Cockburn
Surely, for the big banks the most significant part of this legislation is the provision allowing them
to count municipal bonds as "liquid assets" thus boosting their capital ratio. In reality, of course, these
are highly illiquid. Therefore, come the next crash, authorities will be faced with the prospect either of
JPM, Citi, etc, attempting to dump said bonds thereby tanking the municipal finance system of the country –
unacceptable – or yet again bailing out the banksters to the tune of $trillions. Will the guilty parties be
called to account? Don't ask.
"... Judge Paul Grimm called the case a "terrible conspiracy" involving unscrupulous people plucking at lonely victims' heartstrings to get them to send "jaw- droppingly large amounts of money." ..."
"... The pattern to prey on women -- and in a few cases men -- was typically the same. Someone reached out to divorced, widowed or other single people on social media or dating sites to "catfish" the person on the other end by using a fake name and photo identity. ..."
The man who popped into the North Carolina widow's life through Facebook introduced himself as David Watson.
His profile photo, showing a man with dark hair, olive skin and brown eyes, intrigued her enough to accept his friend request.
They got to know each other over some weeks via Messenger and phone, eventually sharing romantic correspondence.
Then Watson asked a favor. Some Chinese business people had an oil-rigging job that could net millions for his engineering business,
but he needed money for the initial investment. Could she lend him some cash?
Eager to help her new love interest, the widow wrote checks for tens of thousands of dollars.
"She was going to be paid back, she was told," Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Windom said. "She was not."
Watson never repaid her because he never existed. The fraudulent profile was part of an elaborate scheme bilking the elderly,
divorcées, widows and other vulnerable people out of millions of dollars by posing as romantic interests, federal prosecutors said.
Victim after victim, many in tears, testified through various trials over recent months at U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Md.
They said they lost their life savings, cashed out their retirements, went bankrupt and were scorned by their families after discovering
how "foolish" and "gullible" they had been.
Last week, two more people charged in the extravagant hoax were sentenced for their roles in the scam. Olusola Olla, 50, who was
found guilty of conspiracy to commit money laundering and structuring financial transactions, must serve four years in prison. Adeyinka
Olubunmi Awolaja, 34, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering, was sentenced to three years probation with two
years under home monitoring.
Olla, Awolaja and seven others have been convicted or pleaded guilty in connection with the wide-reaching scam that prosecutors
say victimized dozens of people across 20 states between 2011 and 2015.
In one extreme case, an elderly man in the last years of his life ate less, stopped going to medical appointments and took out
a line of credit on his house to send his love, "Mary Blake," nearly $800,000.
"Mary" kept asking for money to support her construction company.
"My dearest Mary, above all else, I want you to succeed," the man wrote. "When I sent you the $30,000, it cleaned me out."
Judge Paul Grimm called the case a "terrible conspiracy" involving unscrupulous people plucking at lonely victims' heartstrings
to get them to send "jaw- droppingly large amounts of money."
"Some of the victims who put money into your account were manipulated by the most cruel means," Grimm said during Olla's sentencing.
The pattern to prey on women -- and in a few cases men -- was typically the same. Someone reached out to divorced, widowed or
other single people on social media or dating sites to "catfish" the person on the other end by using a fake name and photo identity.
After a few weeks of chatting, emails professing their love and some telephone calls, the scammer would ask to borrow money under
the guise of some type of short-term financial pinch: They were abroad and couldn't access their American bank accounts; had an emergency
befall their business and needed quick cash to finish a contract to be paid; or they needed cash to pay travel expenses for a supposed
romantic rendezvous with the person being scammed.
Victims would then deposit cash into various accounts, including one for Olla's used-car dealership and a DJ business tied to
Awolaja. The money would be transferred to other accounts after being laundered, eventually enriching many in the scheme.
Olla's attorney, Eugene Gorokhov, said his client did not know he was part of a plot cheating vulnerable people. Instead, Olla,
who ran an auto sales and shipping business, thought he was receiving cash deposits for work his clients had asked him to do, Gorokhov
said.
"Mr. Olla never knew of any fraud scheme," Gorokhov said. "He received the money and all the time he believed he was part of this
business where he shipped cars to Nigeria."
Awolaja had gotten involved in the case when he wanted to help a childhood friend from Nigeria who had asked to use his bank account.
At his sentencing, Awolaja said he was ashamed someone he considered to be a brother took advantage of him.
"It was never my intent to cause any financial hardship or emotional pain," Awolaja said in court.
But the pain was devastating for those who were desperately lonely and lured by the promise of love and companionship.
"We're going to be together," one of the scammers vowed to the widow he met on senior.com.
A former corporate-fraud prosecutor carried out the "most serious" example of public corruption by a U.S. Department
of Justice attorney in years by stealing more than 40 whistleblower fraud cases in 2016 and trying to sell the secret
information to companies under federal investigation, prosecutors said.
The scheme was an attempt to woo potential clients and increase his earnings and standing in his new role as a
defense lawyer for one of Washington's most influential law firms, according to prosecutors and admissions by Jeffrey
Wertkin at his sentencing Wednesday.
After his arrest for one shakedown attempt, Wertkin embarked on an "obstruction binge" at his private law office to
destroy additional evidence of his year-long plot and also tried to frame a former colleague at the Justice Department
for the records theft, court files show.
Wertkin's sentencing hearing revealed a more extensive and calculating crime than previously was made public, showing
he stole and copied dozens of files -- taking some at night from his boss's desk at main Justice, copying them and
returning them re-stapled -- and then reached out to targeted companies in four states to try to drum up business for
himself.
An attorney for a California company tipped off the FBI in January 2017 to an approach by Wertkin who had offered to
sell a sealed federal lawsuit for $310,000 to the Silicon Valley technology company.
"My life is over," Wertkin told an undercover FBI agent
after he was arrested wearing a wig and fake mustache at an
intended cash drop at a Cupertino, Calif., hotel.
In a court filing seeking leniency, Wertkin said he committed his crimes while on "a terrible path" of abusing
alcohol and marijuana during what his defense called "a period of heightened anxiety and depression, a sense of
impending failure at work and a deteriorating marriage."
"I believe I somehow viewed selling the complaints as a way to escape my problems,'' Wertkin said in a statement
excerpted in a court filing.
Wertkin had joined Akin Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld as a $450,000-a-year partner in Washington in April 2016, the
same month in which he left a nearly-six year career in the fraud section of Justice's Civil Division. For more than a
month before he moved to private practice, he began copying the federal cases including dozens that were not assigned to
him, court files show.
"I thought if I could quickly earn a substantial sum of money, I could provide the material benefits I promised my
family upon moving to Akin Gump -- a new house in a better neighborhood and private school'' for his two young children,
wrote Wertkin, who court files show lived near Dupont Circle.
Prosecutors said there was no reason to believe Wertkin's troubles were "anything more than narcissism and greed."
He was sentenced to 2-1/2 years in prison on two counts of obstructing justice and one count of interstate transport
of stolen property in a hearing late Wednesday before by U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney of San Francisco.
Wertkin's attorney had asked for a sentence of a year and a day.
Assistant United States Attorney Robin L. Harris of the Northern District of California told the court Wertkin's
crime "was breathtaking in its scope and is the most serious and egregious example of public corruption by a DOJ
attorney in recent memory."
His sentence "hopefully restores the confidence in public servants who take an oath to serve their government and
demonstrates that no one is above the law," said the district's Acting U.S. attorney Alex Tse.
A Justice Department spokeswoman did not respond to a request for additional comment on what damage Wertkin may have
caused to cases and whether the internal breach triggered disciplinary actions or corrective measures.
Wertkin worked from December 2010 to April 2016 in the department section responsible for recovering $4.7 billion in
misspent tax dollars in 2016 alone. Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers can receive part of recovered funds for
tipping off fraud in government services and contracts by filing what are known as qui tam lawsuits under seal to
protect their identities while the United States investigates.
Wertkin "took grotesque advantage" of his government position by "shaking down companies" and revealing confidential
information and "jeopardized the integrity of the civil justice system and unfairly cast a shadow over the work of the
civil fraud section," Harris said.
Wertkin, who specialized in health care fraud, also threatened the recruitment of future whistleblowers, "knowing
full well" that the section's success depends on such individuals "coming forward with the prospect of secrecy," she
wrote.
Once at Akin Gump and until he was fired in February 2017, he attempted to court potential clients by dangling the
stolen information, even hinting to one unwitting partner he knew one company "might have a problem coming up,"
prosecutors said.
When that tactic proved ineffective, Wertkin stepped up his crime, admitting that in addition to his pitch to the
Sunnyvale-based technology security provider, he tried to peddle sealed lawsuits to a targeted Alabama company
for $50,000, to a New York company for a price to be determined, and to a company headquartered in Oregon where he
mailed a redacted copy of the cover sheet in the federal case as a lure.
Wertkin also admitted he managed to convince one firm "to retain my services as an attorney to represent it in its
lawsuit."
The company that hired him and the companies he solicited were not named in his case.
"Mr. Wertkin's secret criminal life was not known to anyone at the firm. We were shocked when he was arrested and
outraged when his bizarre, treacherous crimes were revealed," Akin Gump spokesman Benjamin J. Harris said in a statement
Thursday.
In a letter to the court before Wertkin's sentencing, the firm said it was a victim of his crime and defended its
corporate culture.
The theft and misuse of government documents was a "reprehensible betrayal of Mr. Wertkin's duties as a government
lawyer" and of his ethical duties at Akin Gump, and were "harmful to the firm," partner and general counsel Douglass B.
Maynard wrote.
"Whatever drove Mr. Wertkin to his hidden criminal activity, it was not the culture of [sic] firm where he worked for
nine months," Maynard said. "The people he worked with at the firm saw him as a talented, well-liked young partner who
appeared well on his way to a bright future."
Wertkin, a Haverford College and Georgetown Law School graduate, was seen as a "straight-arrow" and promising young
prosecutor at the department, where his "intensity and talent" placed him "at the top of the list for the Fraud
Section's most difficult case assignments," defense attorney Cristina C. "Cris" Arguedas said, citing performance
reviews in a court filing.
Wertkin's troubles spiraled, she suggested, after a federal judge in Alabama threw out a 2016 jury verdict in a trial
for a hospice provider accused of fraudulently billing Medicare for patients who were not terminally ill.
Wertkin was the lead lawyer for the government and the loss in the $200 million case, left him "devastated" and "a
shell of a man," his wife, Erin Erlenborn, said in court filings.
Wertkin grew "increasingly irrational," Arguedas said, and his bizarre "cold-call" to the general counsel of the
California firm calling himself "Dan" and offering to sell a lawsuit revealed a man who "truly believed he was at the
end of his rope."
Wertkin "couldn't stop" even when he knew he would be caught, Arguedas said: Just before he got into an Uber to go to
the drop meeting in a hotel lobby, he got a call from a person at the Department of Justice in Alabama investigating
"Dan's" attempt to sell a case there.
Upon returning to Washington, he destroyed evidence in his Akin Gump office before telling the firm he had been
arrested and placed paper copies of two complaints that he had stolen into an envelope that previously had been mailed
to him by a former Justice Department colleague to falsely implicate the colleague as the thief.
His colleague had mailed Wertkin a picture of the department emblem signed by his colleagues as a farewell gift,
Harris said.
Former DOJ lawyer's theft of secret lawsuits was more extensive than previously known, new court details show. - The
Washington Post
Wertkin's attorney called his actions truly aberrant in an otherwise
"careful, diligent and unblemished life" and said it was "a testament to his previous standing in the legal community
that so many attorneys and former government officials, including former DOJ attorneys" wrote letters to the sentencing
judge on his behalf.
Wertkin, the son of a surgeon and a registered nurse in the affluent New York City suburbs, has
resigned from the bar.
"I hope someday I will be able to understand how I could have abandoned my principles and my honor," Wertkin said as
part of statement before sentencing. "I often lay awake at night and think about these actions, and I weep at the
tragedy that I have brought on myself."
Looks like Mueller investigation was a part of color revolution to depose Trump, using
consequentialism slogan widely attributed to
Machiavelli's The Prince "the end justifies
the means".
Mueller witch hunt is a part of neoliberalism counterattack on forces that are against neoliberal globalization, dropping
standard of living of common people and offshoring of manufacturing. That means tiny greedy elite against the majority of the USA
population. We read about such situations in history books, did not we?
Notable quotes:
"... The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government (not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff memo reveals five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year. ..."
"... It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence, no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele dossier and its salacious accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings. ..."
"... What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won? ..."
"... It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn an election probably a full two years after it was decided. ..."
"... Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7 to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed. ..."
So here's what Mueller has: evidence of unrelated-to-Trump financial crimes by Paul Manafort and others, based mostly from FISA
surveillance on Manafort dating back to
2014
. The FBI's earlier investigation was dropped for lack of evidence, and it appears Mueller revived it now in part so the information
could be repurposed to press Manafort to testify. The role pervasive surveillance has played in setting perjury traps to manufacture
indictments to pressure people to testify against others has been grossly underreported. We'll see more of it, unfortunately, a new
tool of justice in a surveillance state.
Flynn and Papadopoulos are currently charged with relatively minor offenses whose connections to Russiagate are tenuous. Flynn's
contact with the Russian ambassador can be seen as a lot of uncomplimentary things, but it does not appear to have been a crime.
With Papadopoulos there may be a conspiracy charge in there with some shady lawyering, but little more. Further offstage, Carter
Page, a key actor in the
Steele dossier and the
subject of
FISA warrants, has not been charged with anything.
Here's what Mueller is missing. The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government
(not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff
memo reveals
five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's
collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year.
It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence,
no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele
dossier and its salacious
accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings.
What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty
that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won?
But so far the booked charges against Flynn and Papadopoulos and the guilty pleas of others point towards relatively minor sentences
to bargain over -- assuming they have game-changing information to share in the first place. These are process crimes, not ones of
turpitude. Manafort says he'll go to court and defend himself, lips sealed.
It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving
help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn
an election probably a full two years after it was decided.
Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7
to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their
core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed.
A limping-to-the-finish line conclusion to Mueller's work just ahead of the midterms alleging Trump technically obstructed justice,
or a "conspiracy to commit something" charge without a finding of an underlying crime, will risk tearing the nation apart. Mueller
holds a lot in his hands, and he needs soon to produce the conclusive report to Congress he was charged to write. Until then, absent
evidence, skepticism remains a healthy stance.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of
We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He Tweets
@WeMeantWell.
Espionage would possibly be Steele's indictment. But nobody was 'formally' spying for another country. He was simply fed leaked
info and he put it into a document and sent it back. Is that a crime?
Notable quotes:
"... The facts are there but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute. ..."
The Obama spying is politically terrible but when I consider what is laid out I am not seeing very many crimes that would put
people in prison.
Having contractors use FISA 702 search queries – not a crime?
The president disseminating his PDB – not a crime
Unmasking people – not a crime
Submitting fraudulent info to a FISA court – probably a crime (10 yrs?), but tough to prove because submitters can just
say they believed the dossier
Using someone else's name to unmask – probably a crime (but good luck finding out who did it
Leaking FISA 702s to a british spy – probably a crime
Leaking the unmasked intel from president's PDBs – a crime (but leak crimes are tough to catch and won't end up punished
that severely.)
Consipracy/Racketeering – a crime, but a tough case to prove and even put together. That is why tax fraud is the litigator's
preferred indictment, there are just so many moving parts with a conspiracy.
This is most likely why this is taking such a long time – and I worry that most if not all conspirators will skate. They will
probably be fired and collect their retirement pensions but that may be the end of it.
Though with the next democrat president, they will make sure that all those lose ends that got them caught this time will be
perfectly legal. We have only witnessed the beginning of our own homegrown Stazi
We have already seen some of their defense through the dem memo. I am outraged at the spying scheme, but you have to recognize
that all these people involved are lawyers. They will have made sure to have possible exits when the shtf. There are still plenty
of black hats in all our gov bureaus and there will be a constant tit for tat throughout the process. The facts are there
but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute.
Sundance has summarized the scheme quite nicely. Even so, blog posts are very different than an actual indictment. I suppose there
must be more substantial crimes if they have been able to get people to flip – crimes we have not been told (I hope).
You say there are many other cases but fail to name any other crimes that have come to light. You could have enlightened me
rather than just make accusations against me and told me to 'do my homework'.
I am simply saying they have created a scheme where it is nebulously legal. They could have just leaked the 702 queries but
they laundered it through the PDB. This is all done to make it technically legal.
So far I am only seeing leaking, FISA fraud, and conspiracy/racketeering (which is next to impossible to prove). If there are
only indictments along leaking, that would easily be seen as political prosecution (dems live under a different rule book than
Trump/GoP being hounded by corrupt prosecutors ala Mueller). The Dem memo is trying to politicize the FISA fraud because they
recognize that that is the next closest to an open and shut case.
My, street sense, and experience as a lawyer tells me that -- "tips, confessions.." from
informants is true Steve. But the bar for going after a drug dealer, or fence, or kiddie porn
type, is supposed -- one assumes -- to be a hell of a lot lower than going after the nominee
for President of a major political party.
Welcome to the criminal defense world. Everyday, hundreds of warrants based on the statements
of criminals, paid informers, bitter ex-girlfriends, lying cops, and even non-existent
"confidential informants" are issued. With all but the most blatant provably false
affidavits, questionable searches are upheld by judges.
At this point I'm just waiting for Mueller's final indictments and the report. The facts
will be there, or they won't.
If they are, try arguing a Motion to Suppress Evidence in the impeachment trial. That'll
get you far . . .
Some commentators here seem not to know this simple fact: prosecutors in USA have enormous
power. They can make mountains of molehills. And their most powerful weapon is the law of
conspiracy. Here is an explanation by an experienced attorney:
. The United States is home to about 25% of the world's total prison population – over
5.5 times its share of the overall world population.
2. The United States incarcerates about 2.3 million people annually, as of 2016.
3. Many millions more pass through the system briefly for minor arrests or dismissed
charges, and so on – often having to gather costly cash bail or face jail, even if they
are innocent.
4. There are more than 1,700 state prisons, more than 100 federal prisons, more than 900
juvenile facilities and more than 3,100 local jails.
5. There are also a range of specialized short- and long-term holding centers, like military
or indigenous prisons and immigrant detention centers.
6. These facilities – whether public or privately-operated – are a major
economic hub, especially for jobs, in thousands of communities across the country.
7. That makes it politically difficult to promote detention and sentencing reform policies
that would reduce the need for them.
8. Even in public prisons, staff jobs and contracts for food and laundry services become a
local revenue stream that discourages reducing incarcerated populations.
9. Beyond the 2.3 million behind bars, there are also 3.7 million Americans on probation
outside of jail, with various conditions, and 840,000 on parole.
Sources: Washington Post, Prison Policy Initiative, The Globalist Research
Center
Most lawyers, consultants and others who write books have never been to prison or either
focus on one small area of the federal system. Michael Bye has walked the path before you so he
can guide you through it with first hand knowledge and 10 years of experience in all levels of
security. No other book is COMPLETELY Comprehensive. Over 450 detailed and easy to read pages
of priceless information. Michael Bye served nearly a decade in the FBOP. He served time in all
levels of security, from maximum security to minimum-security camps. Michael's extensive
research of the federal system provided him with the knowledge to create this manuscript.
Throughout his term of incarceration Michael became known as the "Jail House" Litigator.
Helping inmates file appeals, time reductions, medical needs as well as religious rights.
This helping hand derived from Michael realizing that most individuals in the Federal System
were not evil, scary people.
They were everyday people who lacked education, made a stupid mistake or had plain old bad
luck. After years of compiling data, going through hand written notes and interviews Michael
created the Practical Guide to Federal Incarceration.
Which will give you the complete knowledge to be able to safely navigate through the system,
from Day 1 until the Day you are released, without incident. He also shows the families of men
and women entering the Federal System the numerous aspects of the FBOP, as well as coping
methods and understanding.
By reading this manual you will develop the tools needed to navigate through your term of
Incarceration, create your own destiny and have a smooth transition back into the Free World.
Read excerpts...
"... I'm also having a hard time not feeling somewhat sorry for Howe, who is the star witness. He was arrested, again, during the trial. He's been accused of any number of pejoratives, by everyone involved. He also seems to be the only one who has really lost anything -- lots of money and a career. ..."
"... They stole over 100 million dollars. Howe lied about one night at a hotel. Howe gets a jumpsuit. Cuomo is still in his office. The COR execs are still being represented by very high priced lawyers, paid for with millions that were stolen. The press gets lots of clickbait about 'ziti' and the 'fat man', that never, ever really gets anywhere near the people who should most be in jail. They have lawyers, you understand. ..."
"... I grew up in NYS and I still know one of the reporters following the trial. Even for me, the scale of the sleaziness is mindboggling. And the evidence seems quite compelling to me. I mean, the wife had a no-show job, nobody even disputes that! Will be interesting to see if guilty verdicts, if there are any, taint Cuomo. Or change anything. ..."
One story I think is very relevant that it not getting nearly enough press is the Cuomo
aide corruption trial.
It is hard to follow. The corruption is so deep and systemic that it's producing its own
gravity and realities.
I'm also having a hard time not feeling somewhat sorry for Howe, who is the star witness.
He was arrested, again, during the trial. He's been accused of any number of pejoratives, by
everyone involved. He also seems to be the only one who has really lost anything -- lots of
money and a career.
The rest of the filth are just fine. They were all more than fine to start with, and most
of that fine is in no jeopardy of ever being taken away, stolen fine included.
They stole over 100 million dollars. Howe lied about one night at a hotel. Howe gets a
jumpsuit. Cuomo is still in his office. The COR execs are still being represented by very
high priced lawyers, paid for with millions that were stolen. The press gets lots of
clickbait about 'ziti' and the 'fat man', that never, ever really gets anywhere near the
people who should most be in jail. They have lawyers, you understand.
I grew up in NYS and I still know one of the reporters following the trial. Even for me,
the scale of the sleaziness is mindboggling. And the evidence seems quite compelling to me. I
mean, the wife had a no-show job, nobody even disputes that! Will be interesting to see if
guilty verdicts, if there are any, taint Cuomo. Or change anything.
Critics have long bewailed our national glut of lawyers, to little effect. Chief Justice Warren Burger
predicted 35 years ago that America
was turning into "a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts." At the time, the
population of attorneys in the United States had surpassed 450,000, and law schools were graduating
34,000 new ones each year. By 2011, the annual production of law degrees was up to 44,000, and at 1.22 million, the number of
lawyers in the country -- which included me -- had nearly tripled. Over the same period, the population of the United States had
risen just 40 percent .
But the wind has changed. In 2011, the number of students entering law school dropped by 7 percent, an unprecedented fall. In
2012, the drop accelerated: Enrollment of first-year law students sank another 8.6 percent.
It plunged
still further in 2013 . According to the American Bar Association, 39,675 new law students matriculated last fall -- an 11 percent
decrease from 2012, to a low-water mark not seen since early in the Carter administration.
Much of the flight from law school reflects the brutal reality of the employment market for lawyers. The National Association
for Law Placement reports that fewer than half of lawyers graduating in 2011 eventually landed jobs in a law firm. Only 65 percent
found positions requiring passage of the bar exam. At a time when many law school graduates are shouldering student-loan debts of
$125,000 or more,
compensation
has declined painfully -- the median starting salary for new lawyers in 2012 was just
$61,000 . And quite a few
can't find any work at all : Nine months after receiving their law degrees, 11.2 percent of the class of 2013 was unemployed.
But the wind has changed. In 2011, the number of students entering law school dropped by 7 percent, an unprecedented fall. In 2012,
the drop accelerated: Enrollment of first-year law students sank another 8.6 percent.
It plunged
still further in 2013 . According to the American Bar Association, 39,675 new law students matriculated last fall -- an 11 percent
decrease from 2012, to a low-water mark not seen since early in the Carter administration.
Much of the flight from law school reflects the brutal reality of the employment market for lawyers. The National Association
for Law Placement reports that fewer than half of lawyers graduating in 2011 eventually landed jobs in a law firm. Only 65 percent
found positions requiring passage of the bar exam. At a time when many law school graduates are shouldering student-loan debts of
$125,000 or more,
compensation
has declined painfully -- the median starting salary for new lawyers in 2012 was just
$61,000 . And quite a few
can't find any work at all : Nine months after receiving their law degrees, 11.2 percent of the class of 2013 was unemployed.
Only some of this is cyclical. The legal profession, like so many others, has been permanently disrupted by the Internet and globalization
in ways few could have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago. Online legal guidance is widely accessible. Commercial services like LegalZoom
make it easy to create documents without paying attorneys' fees. Search engines for legal professionals reduce the need for paralegals
and junior lawyers. Maurice Allen, a senior partner at Ropes & Gray,
is blunt : "There are too many lawyers and too many law firms," he said in a published interview last week. That means less work
for new law school grads, and therefore less reason to go to law school.
And who, except perhaps for law school admissions deans, would be sorry to see America's lawyer bubble finally burst?
With almost 1.3 million lawyers -- more by far than any other country, and more as a percentage of the national population than
almost all others -- the United States is choking on litigation, regulation, and disputation. Everything is grist for the lawyers'
mills. Anyone can be sued for anything, no matter how absurd or egregious. And everyone knows how expensive and overwhelming a legal
assault can be. The rule of law is essential to a free and orderly society, but too much law and lawyering makes democratic self-rule
impossible, and common sense legally precarious.
Scarcely a day goes by without a fresh example of the damage caused by a legal system that so often puts the innocent at the mercy
of the spiteful. To avoid legal liability, companies and institutions must comply with brain-numbing regulations and restrictions
that destroy initiative, smother good ideas, and force grotesque results that benefit no one.
Because it is so overlawyered, "American culture is corroding before our eyes," writes Philip K. Howard, a big-firm lawyer and
well-known reform advocate, in " The Rule of Nobody ," his new book. "It would
have been inconceivable, a few years ago, for a teacher to be scared to put an arm around a crying child, or for a fireman to stand
on the beach for an hour and watch a man drown because he had not been recertified for land-based rescue. Creeping legalisms are
eating away at America's social capital."
From environmental rules so inflexible that fixing a bridge can take years to licensing rules so onerous that kids' lemonade stands
get shut down, all of us are paying for those "hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts," that Warren Burger warned of long ago. Students
by the thousands are shunning law school? That's the best trend I've seen in ages.
OETKB 05/12/14 04:44 AM Thomas Paine noted
that government exists because of our "wickedness." If Mr. Jacoby wants to accelerate a trend towards less lawyers, then our fellow
citizens will have to learn to become less "wicked." Until then laws and a legal system that at times over and under regulates
will continue, probably ad infinitum.
dkbabson 05/12/14 08:03 AM Oetkb, without
lawyers there is more communicating, working our societal problems more reasonably, not just "lawyering" up and battling in
court and board rooms
Ronin555 05/12/14 08:11 AM There is less
communication because people are frightened of each other, and because the system -- as constructed by lawyers and judges responding
to the public -- discourage or prohibit communication. The district courts are full of people seeking restraining orders. In
the criminal cases, the accused is often ordered not to speak with other defendants, witnesses, or anyone else involved in
the case (other than his own lawyer). The result is fewer and fewer people able to work it out among themselves.
MNMoore 05/12/14 05:40 AM The big question
is: With such an oversupply of lawyers, why doesn't the cost of a lawyer come down?
no-name- 05/12/14 08:01 AM because the
free market, another of jake's mythical beasts, doesn't exist.
Ronin555 05/12/14 08:15 AM The fees charged
by lawyers has, mostly, leveled off and in some areas is actually going down. A lawyer I work with, for example, charges $250/hr.
-- which was the rate charged by most lawyers 15 yrs ago. I haven't raised my hourly rate in, perhaps, 10 yrs. and I'm charging
the same fixed fee rates I did 15 yrs ago.
cabinetmaker1954 05/12/14 06:18 AM Oh, yeah;
definitely need less legal regulation. Don't want to impede BP's deep water drilling. Wouldn't want to slow down those sub-prime
mortgages. And we sure as heck don't need to worry about GM selling faulty automobiles. As per usual, Jacoby, you've got your
head firmly planted up your rear end.
myron1958 05/12/14 07:17 AM Nope, we need
more lawyers so little girls can sue their parents for being too strict...
LennyMirra 05/12/14 02:03 PM More lawyers
doesn't help those issues cabinetmaker...as Jacoby writes we have a record number of lawyers in the US and yet all those problems
you list still occurred. More lawyers are not the answer.
geolovely 05/12/14 06:34 AM JJ claims the
problem is too many lawyers, when of course his real goal is just weakened environmental protections, with a reference to a kid's
lemonade stand tossed in as a smoke screen. The problem isn't the number of lawyers per se, it's the ethics, objectives, and methods
of those lawyers.
compromiser 09/16/16 02:40 PM Crazy wacko
liberals will never get it.
And you keep electing the same lawyers, both parties, whose prime goal is more law and regulations which require more lawyers.
You're sooooo gullible... You've allow MA to become so over legislated and regulated that you have a new mother, the state!
But you don't even know it!
LR27 07/25/17 04:15 PM compromiser:
"Crazy wacko liberals" will not vote for Republicans.
Personally, I'd rather live in Massachusetts than a lot of other states. I appreciated living in Massachusetts when my landlord
went bankrupt and Bank of America took over the house, refusing to communicate. In some other states, they could have swooped
in and evicted me on short notice, but I didn't have to worry about that here. I also appreciated living in Massachusetts when
I had to buy individual health insurance, though it was expensive. I've lived long enough to have a few pre-existing conditions.
galwaycity 05/12/14 06:53 AM Nothing about
corporate abuses of the legal system or what they get when they rent politicians
compromiser 09/16/16 02:41 PM Corps are
not exempt from laws, pols are.
LR27 07/25/17 04:01 PM compromiser:
Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? Read the news a bit more thoroughly.
Giermund 05/12/14 06:59 AM I thought JJ was
going to tell is all about how upset he is that (even with all of the lawyers around us) the poor and middle class still don't
have access to our civil courts..
Omj66 05/12/14 07:00 AM Notice how you
don't
criticize corporations using hordes of lawyers.
mean_willie 05/12/14 07:22 AM I was wondering
where Mr Jacoby was going with his latest (he worked so hard on this piece that he missed his usual Sunday column deadline?) effort.
But then the real "point":
"From environmental rules so inflexible that fixing a bridge can take years to licensing rules so onerous that kids' lemonade
stands get shut down, all of us are paying for those "hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts," that Warren Burger warned of long
ago." lawyers = regulation = bad. He NEVER disappoints.
Targus 05/12/14 07:36 AM JJ is a lawyer?
Then it's obvious why he wrote this piece. With his failure to be an effective columnist largely due to misplaced facts and the
influence of his corporate interests JJ has finally realized his real calling and wants back into the one profession he truly
feels comfortable with, prevarication without the embarrassment of Globe reader commentary. With fewer lawyers, as he's now championing,
his own wallet will increase with larger fees because of potential lawyer shortages. Shows you how he thinks. JJ is true to form,
bucks over brains.
PJIslander 05/12/14 08:18 AM Remember, it
was a mad man who said "first kill the lawyers."
almartin98 05/12/14 08:47 AM "brain-numbing
regulations and restrictions" are mainly the result of past bad behavior by companies and institutions. The recent massive explosion
at a fertilizer plant in Texas that wiped out an entire town will doubtless lead to more regulations and restrictions for Jeff
to complain about.
geolovely 05/12/14 11:10 AM "...will doubtless
lead to more regulations and restrictions ..."
- - - - Not in Texas dammit! It's God's country, since he's the only one who protects the poor and working class from the 'benefits'
of unfettered enterprise.
Potlemac 05/12/14 08:51 AM My God Jeff, have
you no decency? when you stated "Scarcely a day goes by without a fresh example of the damage caused by a legal system that so
often puts the innocent at the mercy of the spiteful" I thought, at last Jacoby is going to talk about the Innocence Project or
wrongly convicted citizens who spent decades in prison, but no he talks about corporations being saddled by regulations (you know,
like keeping arsenic and carcinogens out of our drinking water)! Please Jeff, keep your antiquated opinions within the borders
of the old testament and the House Unamerican Activities Committee where you and they belong.
Oilcansman 05/12/14 09:37 AM Really, Jeff?
Can you give one example of a great idea that was quashed by lawyers? Didn't think so. It appears the free market is dealing with
the glut of lawyers fairly efficiently. Don't change a thing.
NER_MCFC 05/12/14 09:38 AM The inherent tendency
of the legal profession to create work for itself is problematic, but I see I'm far from the first to notice that the scope of
Mr. Jacoby's complaint is oddly limited. He doesn't seem to have a problem with armies of corporate lawyers making millions by
(for example) keeping Wall Street executives far away from the prison sentences they so richly deserve.
hamhack 05/12/14 09:39 AM Too many lawyers
is a symptom of a larger problem. Ever time Congress rolls out a bill like Dodd-Frank, it creates new bureaucracies and regulatory
programs that corporations (and individuals) need lawyers to figure out. Look how many CEOs at banks and other large corporations
have JDs - that is no accident, the ability to understand and comply with an ever grorwing sea of state and federal regulations
is a material part of the job description for CEOs at large corporations today.
I spend my days helping clients figure out the vast body of local, state and federal environmental regulations. On Cape Cod, work
in or near wetlands can require up to four separate regulatory approvals, with permitting and consulting (and perhaps legal) fees
required for each. In MA alone, the environmental regulations approach 10,000 pages, plus thousands of additional pages of guidance,
not to mention thousands of administrative law and judicial opinions interpreting all of those regulations. And many of these
programs are simply analogs of federal programs (MA has its own versions of Superfund, Clean Water Act, Clean Act, Section 404
wetlands permits, NEPA environmental impact review, and RCRA hazardous waste management - and of course they are not always consistent
the federal statutes, in fact they can and do conflict).
That regulatory burden is real - just ask Cape Wind, or any inland wind developer or try to take a train to New Bedford some time.
http://www.heraldnews.com/article/20140225/News/140227529
6x6x6x 05/12/14 10:32 AM Exactly, Hamhack.
Whether you are representing an injured worker, an abused child, or a captain of industry, the complexities of expanding and
overlapping statutes, regulations and case decisions make the task daunting, even for a trained and experienced lawyer. The
issue really is not which "side" you are on politically; good lawyers guide the client through the maze created by the Congress,
state legislatures, administrative agencies, courts and private code-promulgating bodies. Mr. Jacoby's comments are simplistic
and miss the target. We live in an increasingly complex world; the complexities require organized thinking; and lawyers are
trained to think in an organized manner. The reasons behind the drop in enrollments and employment are less sinister than the
writer suggests: there is a revolution occurring in legal services. Ten years ago, I sat in an expensive downtown office, using
a secretary, two paralegals and two associates to handle litigation for my business clients. My rates climbed every two years
or so to reflect increased costs, with no real concern for a "ceiling". My firm accomplished its work as it had for 75 years.
Change was incremental and slow. Today, I sit in a home office, connected to my partners and clients by cloud computing, a
cell phone and Internet based research. Technology changes every day, and I must adapt. I serve primarily the same clients
with no secretary, one shared associate and one shared paralegal. I produce just as much work, but at a greatly decreased cost
and at lower rates. For this practice, the bottom line is that I need fewer hands to accomplish the same work, and I can share
the resulting savings with clients. The reduced need for young lawyers is reducing the available jobs, dropping salaries, and
reducing the attraction of a costly legal education. It's the market, and we have not yet seen the bottom.
LR27 07/25/17 04:06 PM hamhack:
I seem to recall a correlation between deregulation of banking and financial disasters. Dodd-Frank is weaker than previous
regulations, but it's better than nothing. Or did you enjoy 2007-2008???
DaleOrlando 05/12/14 10:40 AM Well, Jeff.
What happens when the town is all built and the trees are all felled? They close down the mill.
No such luck with the legal profession which has elected offices so in the bag between candidates and lobbyists that the legal
mills, ugh, institutions of higher learning conferring a legal degree, will keep on churning them out as fast as they apply to
keep up with the changes in the laws-federal, state, local.
It's one of those self perpetuating, constant motion thingamajigies, but don't worry about work for all of the new, bright legal
minds burdened with school debt-they can simply scare someone into giving them a job even if it means bumping down someone qualified.
Oh wait, now that women are advancing in this field...well, no wonder the bugle boys are being dispatched to sound the alarms
and scare them off from spending that much money on school. After all, since women really work at work, the more there are, the
less work there will be. See how that goes? Truly a professional tragedy. :))
fordfalcon 05/12/14 10:53 AM Excellent article.
Very informative which touches both the left and the right.
Bendogger 05/12/14 11:26 AM I wish there
weren't so many lawyers in Congress. As NER_MCFC pointed out, "there's an inherent tendency of the legal profession to create
work for itself." Look at our tax code, as an example. It's needlessly complex. It's only tax lawyers, and those who can afford
them, that benefit from its complexity. It would be ideal to have a Congress that consisted of those who have diverse backgrounds
and skills and could bring more to the table than having been trained as an attorney.
carlida 05/12/14 11:44 AM From the comments,
it looks like the lawyers have come out of the woodwork on this one. The only hope for weeding out the bad apples is Tort Reform.
Unfortunately, most of those
who would have to vote on it are lawyers themselves.
Ronin555 05/12/14 02:38 PM Tort reform
is mostly nonsense and designed to protect corporate America. Few, if any, lawyers are going to spend precious time, and money,
on frivolous lawsuits that they can't win or make enough or any money on. For every personal injury/tort case I accept, I probably
turn down 10.
Inquirer0 05/12/14 12:18 PM The secret to
curing the "legal bubble," as Jacoby puts it is to simplify our laws. We live with an ever expanding legal jumble to the extent
that it is impossible to read legislative bills without a lawyer, much less make the new laws actually do the job for which they
are intended. I totally disagree with Jacoby that we don't need well-targeted regulation to manage markets and protect health
and the environment. However, our problem really is in how we have to keep track of precedent in order to write additional laws,
rather than create simple laws that stand on their own for the good for which they are intended. Perhaps some enterprising computer
scientist can come up with an algorithm that can automatically simplify all previous law and formulate how to most efficiently
create new laws with a minimum of fuss. Otherwise, rule of law, which is one of the founding principles of modern human civilization
(going back at least to Hammurabi), will fast become an albatross that will strangle our civilization to death.
tamorosomd 12/19/17 01:27 PM Good thought,
and I share it to an extent. Unfortunately, we live in an ever more complex world; this requires laws which are comlples, and
interpretation by courts to fill in the blanks laws inevitably leave. I would agree we may have tilted a bit too far in the
direction of precedent, and away from equity as a legal precept, but simple laws will not handle complex issues.
Lynn1066 10/15/15 09:47 AM Good article,
Mr Jacoby! How true!
38Dodge 09/16/17 10:01 AM Reminded me of
a class at Harvard Business School. The topic was mergers. The advice was "Keep the lawyers out of the negotiations!" (If they
don't object to every detail, they feel they are not doing their job.)
>Though the grand jury has existed in the United States since the colonial period, and
the FIFTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution requires its use in federal criminal
proceedings, it has come under increasing attack. Critics charge that it no longer serves
the functions the Framers intended, and therefore should be abolished. Defenders admit
there may be some problems with it today, but contend that these can be remedied.
>In reviewing evidence of criminal wrongdoing, a grand jury is supposed to act as a
shield against ill-conceived or malicious prosecutions. Yet critics charge that grand
juries typically rubber-stamp the prosecution's moves, indicting anyone the prosecutor
cares to bring before it.
>Those who favor ABOLITION of the grand jury argue that the domination of the
prosecutor has led to a passivity that destroys the legitimacy of the grand jury
concept. Most grand jurors have little background in law and must rely on the
prosecutor to educate them about the applicable law and help them apply the law. In
addition, at the federal level, there are very complex criminal laws, like the RACKETEER
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute. Even lawyers find many of these laws
difficult to fathom, yet grand jurors are expected to understand them and apply them to
intricate fact situations. Not surprisingly, charge the critics, the grand jury tends to
follow the prosecution's advice.. . . here
Probably in this case the jurors were given the "trust us, we know and have
decided" treatment that has worked so well on many other people who should know better, and
probably do, but they have been corrupted too. Without a trial, we'll never get the truth,
but that's nothing new.
Prison Food Is Making U.S. Inmates Disproportionately Sick - The Atlantic
This won't surprise anyone: The food served in correctional institutions is generally not
very good. Even though most Americans have never tasted a meal dished up in a correctional kitchen, occasional secondhand
glimpses tend to reinforce a common belief that "prison food" is scant, joyless, and unsavory -- if not even worse. In August,
the
Detroit Free Press
reported
that a prison kitchen worker was fired for refusing to serve rotten potatoes. You can find
nightmarish stories about maggots
in national outlets like
U.S.A. Today
. Meanwhile, The Marshall Project's
more thorough, pictorial
anatomy of daily correctional fare
across the country found that most offerings barely fill a cafeteria tray -- let alone
a hungry belly. Reports like these reinforce the sense that criminal justice has a gastronomic dimension, that
unrelentingly horrid food is a standard feature of the punishment prisoners receive behind bars.
But new evidence
suggests that the situation is worse than previously thought, and not just because prison food isn't winning any James
Beard awards. It's also making inmates sick.
According to a recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), correctional inmates are 6.4
times more likely to suffer from a food-related illness than the general population. The report -- which looked at confirmed
outbreaks across the country between 1998 and 2014, and is the first update to the data in 20 years -- underscores the fact
that prison food is more than just a punch line, a flash point, or a gross-out gag on
Orange Is the New Black
.
It's a hidden public-health crisis.
The study,
published
in the
American Journal of Public Health,
found that inmates suffer from foodborne illness at a rate
of 45 per 100,000 people annually, compared to only 7 per 100,000 in the general population. And 6 percent of
all
confirmed outbreak-related cases of foodborne illness in the United States took place in correctional
institutions -- significant, considering
that less
than 1 percent of the country's
population
is incarcerated. At the same time, "desmoteric" outbreaks -- the kind that occur in correctional institutions -- were the
country's largest outbreaks in four of the 17 years studied. (In six other years, correctional outbreaks ranked within the
top five.) Thirty-seven states reported at least one desmoteric outbreak during the same span.
What's to blame for the dramatic rates of foodborne illness in jails and prisons? That's harder to say. In some ways,
the CDC study is highly specific about what's making people sick: The agency determined that
Clostridium perfringens
and
Salmonella
were the most common disease-causing agents, for instance, and that tainted poultry products
were the most common single culprit. But the data leave us with more questions than answers, since these raw numbers remain
mostly uninterpreted. The study doesn't cover the more systemic factors causing outbreaks in the first place.
Mariel A. Marlow, one of the study's coauthors, was reluctant to speculate about the underlying cultural, operational,
and institutional conditions leading to high rates of illness. "Oversight and regulation of correctional institutions can
vary by state and institution, so just to pull out certain factors is a little difficult," she said. The correctional
system is vast and highly variable: When it comes to food, a jail in Reno may be nothing like a federal prison outside New
Orleans, and a private prison in Texas may look nothing like its counterpart one county over.
But an issue this widespread still signals the existence of underlying, systemic reasons inmates are six times more
likely to be sickened by their food. As it turns out, the problems that arise in correctional food service tend to have
mundane roots, even if the consequences can be dramatic. Institutions struggle to enforce basic food-safety standards:
Though there are reports of corruption and negligence, the primary factor appears to be that many correctional facilities
aren't equipped to execute the food-handling protocols observed in restaurants and corporate cafeterias. And when mistakes
are
made, there are inconsistent processes in place to ensure improvement.
* * *
Judging from news reports, you might think the main factor causing correctional outbreaks is the poor quality of the
food itself. And certainly, a slew of well-publicized lawsuits have accused correctional facilities of buying and serving
dodgy ingredients. In May, for instance, a
class-action suit
was filed against the Oregon Department of Corrections on behalf of current and former inmates,
alleging that the state-run food service is so subpar it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. In recent years, there
have been news reports of inmates served
rotten chicken tacos
,
rancid beef
, and cake that had been
nibbled on by rodents
. Meanwhile, earlier this year, a Michigan judge
dismissed a suit
brought by an inmate who said he'd been repeatedly served moldy bread and spoiled hamburger meat.
(According to U.S. District Judge Gordon Quist, the complaint was without merit: In his view, the Eighth Amendment does not
entitle prisoners to "tasty or aesthetically pleasing" food, only to a diet that allows them to "maintain normal health.")
Examples like these are unfortunately common, said Sara Totonchi of the Southern Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit
that advocates on behalf of prisoners. Her organization commonly receives letters from inmates complaining about food
quality, she explained by email, including being served rotten food.
But food-service providers don't necessarily skimp on ingredients out of a malicious intention to punish prisoners.
Instead, there are often systems of perverse incentives in play: The more cheaply prisoners can be fed, the more money can
often be made by the people charged with their care.
Many state correctional systems outsource their kitchen operations to private food-service companies, which are usually
paid a flat rate per meal to provide a full range of services -- from raw ingredients to kitchen equipment and staff. (Two of
the biggest players are Trinity and Aramark, which, together, serve hundreds of millions of correctional meals per year.)
This arrangement can greatly simplify things for correctional operators without the bandwidth to handle meal service -- but it
can result in a raw deal for inmates, since companies paid by the meal can keep more money when they skimp on food.
To get a sense of why these arrangements can be problematic, look to an ongoing fracas in Michigan. After the
Detroit Free Press
reported in 2015 on a range of issues, from maggot-ridden potatoes to employee drug smuggling, the
state prematurely
terminated its $145 million contract with Aramark
. The arrangement had been a "nightmare," according to Senate Minority
Leader Jim Ananich, a "completely irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars ... [that] jeopardized the health and safety of
inmates and prison employees alike."
For its part, Aramark denies any wrongdoing. In an emailed statement, Karen Cutler, Aramark's vice president of
communications, wrote that Aramark hires registered dietitians to design meals that provide 2,500 to 3,000 calories a day,
and suggested the company had been the target of a negative PR campaign by "opponents of outsourcing and special-interest
groups."
After Michigan hired Aramark's main competitor, Trinity, as a replacement in 2015, the problems seem to have continued.
Early this year, the state
imposed a $2 million fine
on Trinity, including $905,750 for "unauthorized meal substitutions," $357,000 for delays
serving meals, and $294,500 for sanitation violations. According to the
Free
Press
, the poor quality and
quantity of food served by Trinity was one factor that led
to a riot that caused $900,000
in damage at a prison in Kinross, Michigan. Trinity did not respond to a request for
comment.
In this case, the solution is simple: Eliminate arrangements that motivate people to underspend on food, and meals are
likely to improve. But though stories about rotten potatoes can excite one's darker curiosities, the conclusions of the CDC
report point to a far more mundane culprit: Inside a correctional facility's walls, even basic food-safety standards can
fall by the wayside.
* * *
During the 23 years he oversaw food operations at the Graham Correctional Facility in Hillsboro, Illinois, Joseph
Montgomery says he never saw a major outbreak of foodborne illness from food served out of the prison kitchen. When inmates
did
get sick, he says, they were kitchen workers who'd smuggled inventory back to their cells.
"We have a population who will steal food from the general kitchen in various ways you probably wouldn't want to try
printing," he says. "They will steal that product from the kitchen and take it back to their cell house. Their only way to
have a refrigerator is if they put it in a container with a little bit of ice, but nine times out of 10 they don't have
ice. In the summertime, it's going to sit on a windowsill or in a drawer so nobody sees it for two, four, six, eight
hours."
The temptation for correctional kitchen staff to take food back to their cells can be profound, especially in situations
where they're being routinely underfed. But since harmful bacteria multiply rapidly at room temperature, the resultant
standing time can be enough make people sick. Montgomery says he's seen anywhere from two to 15 people sickened in a single
incident from contraband food. And, according to the CDC report, this really does pose a significant safety issue. Of the
200 outbreaks reported since 1998, the food in question was only identified 41 percent of the time. But of those 82
outbreaks, 16 incidents -- almost 20 percent -- involved "illicitly obtained or prepared food."
The most dangerous culprit is one you've probably heard about: pruno. A prison wine that can be made by fermenting
stolen cafeteria supplies -- cut fruit, sugar cubes, and ketchup -- pruno is the rare correctional food-safety hazard that's
cracked the popular consciousness. Tongue-in-cheek pruno recipes have been featured in
Food & Wine
and the
Los
Angeles Times
, a
faux ad for
"Pruno Creek Gourmet Prison Wine"
ran on Conan O'Brien's show, and fans
suggest
it's what Poussey was swilling on
Orange Is the New Black.
According to the CDC, pruno was implicated
in four out of 16 -- 25 percent -- of outbreaks known to result from contraband food (that's about 2 percent of the total
outbreaks studied).
It's easy to see why pruno poisonings have made headlines in the likes of
CNN
,
NPR
, and
The Atlantic
, in recent years. It's dangerous stuff, made under abysmal food-safety conditions -- illicit, ad-hoc
distilleries run in secret without proper supplies or oversight, by inmates willing to take risks for a brief reprieve from
the monotony of prison life -- conditions that can breed botulism, a virulent bacteria capable of causing paralysis and death.
Montgomery says he's known inmates to drink a version so strong that it ate through the sole of the rubber boot it was
brewed in.
But while it's true that underground food preparation tends to be lacking from a food-safety perspective, and makes for
more sensational news reports, the food preparation happening under direct supervision can be just as inadequate -- and
appears to be a much more significant problem.
* * *
Correctional facilities aren't just giant housing complexes: They tend to be understaffed, oversubscribed cafeterias,
ones that can be responsible for feeding thousands of people three meals a day. Food service on that scale can be a
challenge even for experienced teams of culinary professionals, but sources say correctional kitchens are often forced to
get by with undertrained staff, shoddy equipment, and poor oversight.
Many state prisons choose to save money by using inmate labor in the kitchen, an arrangement with potential benefits.
According to John Cornyn, a food-service consultant who's spent a portion of his 40-year career working on correctional
projects in institutions from California to New York, inmates tend to like the role. "One, you're filling up your day with
work, and two, the likelihood is that you're going to eat well," he says. The trouble is that most inmates don't actually
have experience working in kitchens, and some lack even the most basic commercial food-handling and safety-training skills.
Ernest Rich says he served 19 years of a 24-year drug-related sentence in the California state correctional system, and
most of the time he worked in food.
"I can tell you one thing ... Nobody has food-safety training," he says. "You've got people coming in there all the time
who know nothing about cooking. They're learning as they go. They don't know nothing about what you should do, what you
should not do."
In Rich's experience, that lack of training means mistakes are common. "They don't label things. They don't rotate the
stock the way it's supposed to be. Those kitchens aren't ran like ordinary kitchens should be ran," he says.
That, according to Rich, means people get sick "a lot."
"You may hear about people, 15 or 20 people get sick on one yard," he says. "That's stuff that you hear about all the
time."
According to the CDC report, outbreaks are most commonly caused by the kinds of unwitting, everyday infractions Rich
describes. "Contributing factors" -- additional conditions that enabled or amplified a food-safety hazard -- were only identified
in 38 percent of cases. But in those cases, the ones we know about, two of the most common food-safety-hazard-related
outbreaks were easily preventable: 26 percent involved food handled by an infected person, while 24 percent involved
"inadequate cleaning of processing or preparation equipment or utensils."
Mistakes are made even more frequently in the absence of proper oversight, a scenario that seems to be all too common.
In Illinois, Montgomery remembers there being 40 inmates on duty during the day shift, with three supervisors, at least one
of whom, by law, was required to have professional food-safety training. That's a ratio of about 13 inmates for every
supervisor inside a 1,500-square-foot kitchen -- about as good as it gets, he says. But both Montgomery and Cornyn said the
ratio is more commonly 15, even 20 inmates per supervisor. That's not ideal, especially because food safety is not always
top of mind for overburdened supervisors.
"Security is your number-one priority, even in the kitchen. Food comes in second," Montgomery says. "That's what makes a
food supervisor in corrections a really hard job. They have to be security-minded 100 percent of the time
and
put
out a safe, quality product."
The most dangerous culprit may also be the most mundane. According to the CDC report, 37 percent of outbreaks with a
known contributing factor began simply because food was left out at room temperature for longer than is safe -- the most
common cause identified.
"I've seen [inmates] leave food out too long," Montgomery said. "Kitchens are warm and they leave food on the counter as
they're prepping it."
To an extent, this issue could be addressed through better training. But more systemic factors contribute, too. Most
jails and prisons simply weren't built to accommodate efficient food service, and Cornyn says that even in newly
constructed facilities, the kitchens are designed almost as an afterthought -- "the cheapest way possible." That can be a huge
mistake, he says, because prison kitchens typically need to be even larger than their commercial counterparts. In
situations where "sharps" -- knives attached to wire cables -- are in use, inmate workers must be placed many feet apart. And
many facilities don't take advantage of space- and labor-saving machinery that speed up prep times in civilian
restaurants -- the whole point is to provide opportunities for manual labor. All these make larger kitchens necessary, and in
cramped confines the work takes much longer than it should -- setting the stage for potential food-safety hazards.
But the trouble continues once the food leaves the kitchen for the mess hall. For security and logistical reasons, many
facilities can't feed their entire populations all at once -- they feed prisoners in waves instead, so that the dining hall is
never overfull. This takes time, and often means food is left out, shift after shift.
"We don't have the luxury in corrections to make partial batches a lot of the time. Most of the time you have to make
the entire thing all at once," Montgomery says. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, meat can only sit out for
two hours above 40 degrees Fahrenheit before safety becomes an issue.
Rabbi Aryeh Blaut routinely witnessed warm food left out at a federal prison in Massachusetts, where he spent time as an
inmate 14 years ago. (Today, Blaut is the executive director of Jewish Prisoner Services, a nonprofit advocating for
incarcerated individuals with kosher diet needs.)
"There might be two or three food shifts, but they're not necessarily bringing in fresh food for each shift," he said.
"Through that time, the hot food isn't being kept hot, and the cold food isn't being kept cold."
In overpopulated prisons, meal service can take so long that facilities are sending out food throughout the day. "I've
been in situations where the meal finally is served, they clean up, and they start setting up for the next meal. It takes
that long to get the food out," Cornyn says. "That's not ideal."
The dire combination of untrained workers and space limitations make the already-daunting task of correctional food
service all the more challenging. And though simple improvements could do so much to keep inmates from getting sick, the
reality is that -- unlike at public eateries -- no one is watching to make sure the situation improves.
* * *
A strict, uncompromising inspection system seems like an obvious solution to the prison system's outbreak woes. Regular
inspections work well, for the most part, in restaurants and school cafeterias, after all. Why shouldn't that translate
into the correctional setting?
Turns out, pretty much
everything
is different in a prison kitchen.
To start, state, local, and federal prisons across the country don't follow the same rulebook. Federal prisons follow
the Bureau of Prisons'
Food Service Manual
(FSM), which is similar to the FDA's Food Code (FFC) -- the rule book used in restaurants. But the CDC
points out a couple of key differences in its report. For instance, the manual lacks the FFC's clear language about when a
kitchen worker can start working after being sick. It also doesn't explicitly say that federal food-service employees have
to receive food-safety training.
Meanwhile, state and local facilities (which house about 10 times the number of inmates as federal facilities) can
create their own guidelines. Sometimes that means adhering to the FDA's Food Code, and sometimes that means using the
Bureau of Prisons' manual. But there's no universal rule for food safety in state and local facilities. In Michigan, the
problems under Aramark's tenure prompted the state's congress to introduce bills that would classify prison cafeterias as
"food establishments," meaning they'd have to act like restaurants and follow the FDA Food Code, requiring a food-safety
manager to be present at all times. But those bills never passed the legislature. "Each state is different," Montgomery
explains.
The inspection process is just as uneven. No uniform, nationwide rules govern how and when federal, state, and local
prison kitchens are inspected. The process varies based on state and local jurisdiction -- Montgomery explains that state
facilities get inspected by state inspectors, but county jails get inspected by the county health inspector. These
inconsistencies can make it easy for violations to slip through the cracks. In federal facilities, meanwhile, enforcement
is left to the discretion of the institution's Food Safety Administrator, who is given broad latitude. Weekly inspections
are required but, according to the FSM, "procedures and reports for formal inspections ... are developed locally."
Even when an inspector
does
find fault in the kitchen, penalties can be mild or nonexistent. Think of it this
way: A state-run agency isn't likely to slap a hefty fine on another state-run agency, nor can inmates choose to take their
business to an A-graded cafeteria over a B-graded mess hall. Even when private contractors are in charge (and can therefore
be fined), penalizing slipshod safety practices is tricky -- no matter what happens during an inspection, inmates have to be
fed two or three times every day. Inspectors don't usually have the last-ditch option of shutting down a prison cafeteria
altogether.
Contracting with a third-party food-service provider can add another layer of complexity, as it's not always clear who's
responsible for making sure the rules get followed. In Ohio, for example, Aramark and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction disagreed over "
shared
responsibility
" for kitchen cleanliness. In a
study
that interviewed correctional officers about Aramark's tenure in Michigan, those same shared responsibilities
were said to have caused tensions between correctional-facility officers and Aramark employees, who argued about whose job
it was to purchase cleaning supplies. Problems can result from this unclear chain of command; according to the study's
author, "there was universal agreement across the focus groups that the kitchen areas became less sanitary with
privatization." As one officer quoted in the study put it: "Cleanliness is horrible. I don't know how it passes any kind of
inspection." The trouble is that it can be unclear whose job it is to clean up the mess.
* * *
While systemic disadvantages continue to compromise safety, existing regulations have failed to address common problems.
Ultimately, then, the solution may fall to inmates themselves. Which is probably why, if the CDC report has one overarching
recommendation, it's that correctional facilities work harder to educate inmates on food safety. Even though high
kitchen-staff turnover and low food-service budgets hinder progress, intensive food-safety training is one factor
institutions
can
control.
It's a rare win-win: Programs that work to provide inmates with food-safety certification can help reduce incidences of
foodborne illness
and
provide formerly incarcerated individuals with a career path once they return to civilian
life.
Ernest Rich says when he was incarcerated, he started working for Cal Fire (part of the state's Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection) in a
program
where inmates set up outdoor mobile kitchens to serve firefighters as they battle blazes. Maybe it was because
the meals weren't served inside a prison's walls, but Rich noticed that food safety was taken much more seriously.
"They have a health inspector come by there and make sure that the food is being served and make sure everybody's
wearing gloves. They're going to make sure that all this is going on. They don't do that inside a prison," he says.
At Cal Fire, Rich picked up the knowledge that would ultimately land him a job in food service when he returned to
civilian life. He says he got involved with a reentry organization called HealthRIGHT and eventually started working at
L.A. Kitchen, a nonprofit dedicated to job training. "You take the food-handling test and you get your certification. You
go from there and they give you a job and et cetera. It's a great, great program," he says.
There's been a small movement to bring these kinds of workforce training programs inside prison walls. Montgomery
teaches a class in Illinois prisons where students can earn a State of Illinois food-handler certification, which offers a
competitive advantage when they walk into an interview. And there's plenty of opportunity. Every single restaurant in the
state is
required to have at least one person
on site at all times with the permit his class provides.
Private contractors offer food-safety education opportunities as well. Aramark's In2Work program, a curriculum based on
the National Restaurant Association's ServSafe program, is a selling point when it bids for new contracts. The program
currently operates in more than 75 facilities across the country.
Rich says that these types of initiatives, if implemented nationally, would benefit inmates during their sentences and
after release. "If they tried to train you, they trained people properly, they could use these skills. But the way they're
training people now in culinary, it's not going to do you no good when you get out of here," he says. "They're not training
you in these prisons how to become a culinary cook. They're just using a body to serve the food."
That's a missed opportunity, according to Cornyn. "I think any prison food-service operator will tell you that they've
come across some really great inmate workers," he says. "They just either have prior restaurant experience before they were
incarcerated, or they simply found that they like that kind of work, and they do an outstanding job."
Released in February 2017, Rich now has a full-time job with benefits in a high-rise cafeteria in California, a job he
got as the result of the culinary training program at L.A. Kitchen -- a program similar to the training the CDC report
recommends for all inmates. Unlike so many formerly incarcerated people, who face huge uncertainty upon release, Rich has
managed to answer some longer-term questions about his future.
"That's how I think of it," he says. "It's a career for me."
Once upon a time I provided health services to inmates in a prison. Generally speaking I
liked the inmates better than the guards, who for the most part were men who had wanted to
become cops but were too stupid to pass selection. I met some real brewmasters (inmates)
working that gig. Good luck with the brew.
The Criminal Trial Handbook is a concise and practical treatise setting forth the nuts and
bolts of what every lawyer needs to know to competently and effectively try a criminal case. It
is designed for use by both prosecutors and defense attorneys, experienced and inexperienced.
Compiled and written by a California Superior Court judge with nearly 30 years of courtroom
experience, the handbook follows the natural progression of a jury trial from the first day
counsel arrive at the courtroom through the closing argument. At each stage of a trial, the
applicable rules of courtroom procedure and evidence are explained. It covers common
evidentiary trial issues, such as hearsay and character evidence, and includes the verbatim
text for some of the most commonly used California Evidence Code sections and selected case law
authorities. Topics covered include:
• Pre-Trial Motions
• Discovery
• Jury Selection
• Opening Statements and Closing Arguments
• Direct Examination
• Cross-Examination
• Expert Witnesses
• Hearsay
• Character Evidence
• Writings
• Foundational Requirements for Evidence
• Objections
• Deliberations
In addition, the handbook describes basic trial tactics, such as how to effectively
cross-examine a witness, how to present evidence in the courtroom, and how to make persuasive
opening statements or closing arguments. It also contains "Trial tips," practical suggestions
for the courtroom not ordinarily found in other legal treatises or law books. Although
primarily geared towards criminal law, many of the trial procedures and tactics discussed are
equally applicable in civil trials. The handbook is also a great resource for law students or
anyone interested in learning the fundamentals of a criminal jury trial.
"... You wrongly believe that the IC and DoJ are acting in good faith when they prosecute. lawyers think it just fine to make deals between the sides and including the judge that are based on administration desire to "nail" someone for political reasons involving control of society. The DoJ often withhold evidence from security cleared defense lawyers, evidence that should have been handed over in Discovery. I have caught them at it a few time by telling them what is in the material withheld, just a matter of logic. pl ..."
"... Certainly, my experience in such matters dwarfs yours, but, it is not non-existent. My experience with court appointed counsel (thankfully, not as a defendant) is far less laudatory than is your description. Too often, I've found judges succumbing to the same prejudices that many laypeople do. The mindset, "your most likely guilty," is way too common, and, obvious. ..."
"... Even more unjust, the, all too often perfunctory denial of: 1. additional time for these overburdened Public Defenders to adequately study the case at hand, 2. Sufficient funds for outside investigators & lab/forensic work, and, 3. Enough time to properly/thoroughly examine witnesses, directly, and, in cross. They are always in a hurry to, "move it along." Thus, they are more likely to deny the indigent motions, and, lines of questioning that are standard for more affluent participants. ..."
"... Granted, my experience is in State Courts; Is it that much different in Federal Courts? ..."
Some years back I followed the court cases around the denial of mass surveillance. In
every case the federal government invoked "state secrets" to prevent the cases from going
forward in any meaningful way. As expected the courts ruled in favor of the government.
It seems that in most cases "state secrets" were invoked to protect government malfeasance
and/or ineptitude.
Is there a reasonable standard were real national security secrets are protected but not
malfeasance and ineptitude?
Sam P You wrongly believe that the IC and DoJ are acting in good faith when they prosecute.
lawyers think it just fine to make deals between the sides and including the judge that are
based on administration desire to "nail" someone for political reasons involving control of
society. The DoJ often withhold evidence from security cleared defense lawyers, evidence that
should have been handed over in Discovery. I have caught them at it a few time by telling
them what is in the material withheld, just a matter of logic. pl
What I would like to know, Col. Lang, is why you know this and why Congress is not even
interested in knowing? The reality is that the judicial system, on all levels, is a huge scam
and nobody is doing anything about it.
I guess you missed the fact that I am considered to be a global level authority on these
subjects as well as military affairs in general. Public and other defenders solicited my
assistance. DoJ and the federal courts hired me, accredited me and DoJ cleared me to the Top
Secret codeword level so that I could read all the government files offered in Discovery.
Nobody did that for you? the courts also paid me extremely well but not was well as some of
the experts favored by DoJ. HOW do I know the essential collusion and conspiracy present on
the US justice system? I watched it up close. How about you? Congress is part of the swamp
and filled with stupid and ignorant people. pl
As a new commenter, long time reader, I can't, adequately, express my appreciation and
respect for your experience, and, the body of knowledge you bring to this forum. It is on
that basis that I ask you for some additional illumination regarding your description of the
attorneys provided to indigent defendants:
"These lawyers are fully funded and staffed and are every bit as good as the DoJ US
Attorney's people and staff."
Certainly, my experience in such matters dwarfs yours, but, it is not non-existent. My
experience with court appointed counsel (thankfully, not as a defendant) is far less
laudatory than is your description. Too often, I've found judges succumbing to the same
prejudices that many laypeople do. The mindset, "your most likely guilty," is way too common,
and, obvious.
Even more unjust, the, all too often perfunctory denial of: 1. additional time for
these overburdened Public Defenders to adequately study the case at hand, 2. Sufficient funds
for outside investigators & lab/forensic work, and, 3. Enough time to properly/thoroughly
examine witnesses, directly, and, in cross. They are always in a hurry to, "move it along."
Thus, they are more likely to deny the indigent motions, and, lines of questioning that are
standard for more affluent participants.
Granted, my experience is in State Courts; Is it that much different in Federal
Courts?
Money and Politics seems to be the main rules under which DOJ AND CIA AND CONGRESS (in caps)
function.
Funding both unclassified and classified, and funding that isn't supposed to exist, along
with politics where aspiring personnel and lawyers hoping to make their bones so-to-speak
before their bosses would rather see their careers advanced over the right thing (and lawful
depending).
If Justice could only peer out of her blindfold and take a peek at the jesters before her,
what would she say?
One could think that financial crimes would be treated with harsh punishment in a capitalist
economy where the rules of fair competition would be the 11th commandment. However, and no need
to cite references, the most egregious economic crimes (think 2008) go unpunished. Yet,
microscopic economic crimes (e.g. shoplifting) often involve jail time in harsh facilities. I
suspect that Vietnam is the exact opposite in that regard.
No great revelation here but the difference between the two countries is that the US has a
class based system whereas Vietnam does not.
The combination of a communist party and capitalism could be a practical way to obtain the
benefits of capitalism/competition with the party enforcing the law and guiding the overall
direction of the economy. Perhaps that is a major reason for China's stunning economic growth.
If China's success continues, that model could take root (under a different name and modified
for local circumstances) in developing countries that do not have the baggage of the Western
class system. Hope so.
"The combination of a communist party and capitalism could be a practical way to obtain the
benefits of capitalism/competition with the party enforcing the law and guiding the overall
direction of the economy."
The communists (or people or wise and sage rulers or religious leadership) set the stage, the
laws and enforce compliance. The capitalists act within the confines of those laws without
opportunity to evade or subvert. No family accumulation of capital would be permitted (no
dynasties) and corporation ownership would be distributed on a broad base. It would be a
utopian world that may not be achievable but still possible. China has found a formula that
seems to work and it could work for other countries with a similar cultural experience.
Whether capitalism and Communism can co-exist or be made to co-exist would depend very much on
how the society in question defines private property and private property ownership, and how
its laws regulate and police ownership and transfers of ownership. Would individuals and
companies be allowed to own land or only be able to lease it from governments or communities?
If someone dies or if a company is liquidated or bought by another company, should any land
that person or company was holding at the time be returned to the government or the community?
Can any decision to return the land be challenged? These are some questions that would have to
be addressed and resolved for the two ideologies to co-exist.
By any realistic definition, China is ruled by the Communist party yet China has large numbers
of billionaire and huge numbers of millionaires so one can say that communism, when it is in
charge of the country , can tolerate a capitalistic element. I doubt that the reverse would
be possible given the mandate of capitalism to endless expand, acquire and control.
Land can only be leased I believe. I do not know about inheritance laws but I would suppose
creation of capitalistic dynasties would be frowned upon.
"... The 34-year-old is spending his time mentoring fellow inmates, reading, playing chess -- and learning to deal with sharing a small, cramped cell with a snoring roommate, pal Lisa Whisnant told The Post. ..."
"... "Things are not THAT awful here," inmate 87850-053 wrote to Whisnant, underlining "THAT" three times. "There are some bright sides. I am teaching these prisoners some new things and hopefully some ways to change their lives." ..."
"... "He seems to be handling it with typical Shkreli style," she said. "He brings people together and shares his knowledge. Martin was meant to be a teacher. He loves it. He's a natural." ..."
The 34-year-old is spending his time mentoring fellow inmates, reading, playing chess
-- and learning to deal with sharing a small, cramped cell with a snoring roommate, pal Lisa
Whisnant told The Post.
"Things are not THAT awful here," inmate 87850-053 wrote to Whisnant, underlining
"THAT" three times. "There are some bright sides. I am teaching these prisoners some new
things and hopefully some ways to change their lives."
"He seems to be handling it with typical Shkreli style," she said. "He brings people
together and shares his knowledge. Martin was meant to be a teacher. He loves it. He's a
natural."
Of course Martin Shkreli is becoming the leader of the prison population. I
wouldn't have expected anything else.
The man is a natural born dealmaker and all-time schmoozer. I don't know Martin well at all.
I've had a few beers with him on different occasions. He's an interesting guy. Not an evil guy
by any measure, but he does seem to enjoy his online persona.
It's also not surprising to me because anybody who talks to him know he's very charismatic.
I'm glad to see Martin is finding his lane in prison, and running the whole prison crew.
Classic Shkreli move.
shhhhh5 hours ago he is a cool guy... sad to see them rail road him like this... Hung out with
him on election night and was nothing but fun... hopefully he gets back on his feet when the
demo-rats let him out
Martha Stewart is opening up about her five month stint at West Virginia's Alderson Federal
Prison Camp in 2004, calling the experience "horrifying."
"It was horrifying and no one, no one, should have to go through that kind of indignity
really except for murderers, and there are a few other categories, but no one should have to go
through that," she told Katie Couric in an exclusive clip for a new episode of Couric's
self-titled podcast. "It's a very, very awful thing."
Since it's been 13 years since Stewart was sentenced for lying about the sale of a stock,
Couric wondered whether the domestic guru felt it was a growth experience for her after all
this time.
"[Did I feel] that 'you can make lemons out of lemonade' and 'what hurts you makes you
stronger'? No. None of those adages fit at all," she said on the podcast, which has also hosted
stars like Alec Baldwin, Ina Garten and Julia Louis-Dreyfus. "It's a horrible experience,
nothing is good about it, nothing."
Stewart, now 76, was placed in minimum security prison, but assured Couric that it was no
walk in the park. "There are lots and lots of disturbing things that go on in an incarceration
like that," she said. "In minimum security you still couldn't walk out the gate or cross the
river. There's still guards and it's still nasty."
The home cook also credited her negative experience to "being taken away from your family,
being maligned, and being treated the way you were treated," she said. "It's horrible and
especially when one does not feel one deserves such a thing."
But with her ever-expanding empire, like the release of her 89th cookbook, Martha Stewart's
Slow Cooker, and the success of her show Martha & Snoop's Potluck Dinner Party, Stewart
refuses to let those unbearable five months define her.
"One thing I do not ever want is to be identified or I don't want that to be the major thing
of my life," she said. "It's just not fair. It's not a good experience and it doesn't make you
stronger. I was a strong person to start with and thank heavens I was and I can still hold my
head up high and know that I'm fine."
The full interview with Stewart is available through the Katie Couric podcast on
Thursday.
by Henry on September 14, 2017 This
exit interview with Richard Posner, who is retiring as a judge, is interesting.
"About six months ago," Judge Posner said, "I awoke from a slumber of 35 years." He had
suddenly realized, he said, that people without lawyers are mistreated by the legal system,
and he wanted to do something about it. He had become concerned with the plight of litigants
who represented themselves in civil cases, often filing handwritten appeals. Their grievances
were real, he said, but the legal system was treating them impatiently, dismissing their
cases over technical matters. "These were almost always people of poor education and often of
quite low level of intelligence," he said. "I gradually began to realize that this wasn't
right, what we were doing."
Judge Posner said he hoped to work with groups concerned with prisoners' rights, with a
law school clinic and with law firms, to bring attention and aid to people too poor to afford
lawyers.
In one of his final opinions, Judge Posner, writing for a three-judge panel, reinstated a
lawsuit from a prisoner, Michael Davis, that had been dismissed on technical grounds. "Davis
needs help ! needs it bad ! needs a lawyer desperately," he wrote.
On the phone, Judge Posner said that opinion was a rare victory. "The basic thing is that
most judges regard these people as kind of trash not worth the time of a federal judge," he
said
I don't want to be snarky – it is unqualifiedly great that someone of Posner's stature
on the right is taking up this cause. I do want to point out though, that it can be interpreted
as a partial completion of something that was incomplete before – Posner's commitment to
pragmatism as an approach to understanding the law.
As the NYT piece notes in passing, Posner is famous for his argument that law should be
interpreted pragmatically, as an exercise in problem solving. Yet as Jack Knight and Jim
Johnson pointed out twenty years ago, in a response to Posner's major book on
pragmatism, he left out all of the political arguments that were part of the web and woof of
pragmatist thinking in the early twentieth century. John Dewey, for example, saw pragmatism as
tied up with democracy, and democracy with a commitment to radical equality, in which 'publics'
would be able to solve problems without interference from Old Corruption.
Knight and Johnson quote a bit from Posner's argument back then:
Today's legal pragmatism is so dominated by persons of liberal or radical persuasion as to
make the movement itself seem (not least in their eyes) a school of left-wing thought. Yet
not only has pragmatism no inherent political valence, but those pragmatists who attack
pieties of the right while exhibiting a wholly uncritical devotion to the pieties of the left
(such as racial and sexual equality, the desirability of a more equal distribution of income
and wealth, and the pervasiveness of oppression and injustice in modern Western society) are
not genuine pragmatists; they are dogmatists in pragmatist clothing.
As Knight and Johnson point out, Posner's efforts to divorce pragmatist problem solving from
considerations of power simply do not make sense.
Posner rightly affirms the central importance of unforced inquiry to pragmatism. Dewey made
this theme central to his conception of democratic politics. He also made it central to his
writings on law.62 Thus Posner correctly recognizes that "from a pragmatist perspective the
main concern is with the danger of premature closure of legal debate." But he then wavers
considerably regarding the seemingly obvious political consequences of this statement.
Unforced inquiry entails reasoned deliberation. If we are to avoid "premature closure,"
however, it also seemingly entails free and equal access for relevant actors to all relevant
arenas of deliberation, debate, and decision. While Posner readily accepts the first of these
implications, he remains very reluctant to accept the second. This is especially clear in his
remarks both on the diversity of the legal establishment and on the barrier that economic
inequality presents with respect to access to the courts."
More specifically:
He concedes that asymmetries of wealth or political power distort free and open inquiry in
the American legal system. The adversary system does not much resemble the concept of
unforced inquiry that is the pragmatists' ideal and the scientists' ethic. Furthermore, the
competitors in our privatized competitive system of justice often have markedly and
irremediably unequal resources. Most criminal defendants lack the resources to hire counsel
equal in skill and experience to the public prosecutor, and public subvention of the cost of
counsel for indigent criminal defendants has not been sufficiently generous to close the gap.
Having identified another serious barrier to free and equal access, however, Posner once
again falters. He finds "troublesome" suggestions that the remedy for these distortions of
unforced inquiry "may require redistributing wealth or continually intervening in the
marketplace of ideas."
It would appear that in the intervening decades, Posner has changed his mind, and has done
so in an eminently pragmatist fashion, as the result of practical experience. Again, I'm not
looking to score points here – if someone like Posner picks up this cause, it is likely
to resonate with people who would dismiss or ignore similar arguments from the left. Instead,
I'm pleased that he's developing his commitment to pragmatism, in the ways that Knight and
Johnson advocated, rather than leaving it in a stunted condition.
It's hard to know what to make of Posner's transformation over the years, other than, I
suppose, to welcome it,(or if it makes up for the real damage he and those inspired by him
did for a long time) but in fairness, his pragmatism was always more of the individualist
sort inspired by Holmes (and in some ways James) than the more Hegelian sort found in Dewey.
If you read Holmes's _The Path of Law_, you can see a lot of Posner's views set out there
already. That's a consistent enough strand of pragmatism to warrant the name, I think.
Posner: "These were almost always people of poor education and often of quite low level of
intelligence,"
Mostly they are just poor. I'm glad Posner got around to the insight that people without
lawyers shouldn't be treated with contempt by the legal system, but he didn't also have to
insult their intelligence.
This legal system, its inaccessibility and unfairness, is America's eternal shame.
J-D 09.15.17 at 1:27 am
"The basic thing is that most judges regard these people as kind of trash not worth
the time of a federal judge," he said
In other words, he's saying that his colleagues ! at least, most of them ! don't believe
in equal protection of the laws, no matter what it says in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Is such frankness as unusual as it seems to me?
b9n10nt 09.15.17 at 3:09 am
J-D @10
The ideological rationalizations that provide cognitive consonance for judges (just like
parents and professionals of all types who wield immediate social power) are likely rooted in
the practice of more immediate and perplexing dilemnas that the judge is required to
resolve.
Like perhaps she knows that her jurisdiction can't handle a certain volume of cases that
are left at her doorstep and she either formally or tacitly must filter yadda yadda . I'm not
saying it's that but typically there's some felt, situational pragmatism in beaurocratic
cruelty.
And also, who can believe (in spirit, beyond the reach of rationalizing!) in equal
protection in this society? She's a US federal judge circa 2020. She's have to see it,
practice it, it would be expected of her. If she's a federal judge she believes in equal
protection by practicing "recreational" politics off hours. Because if the polity really did
allow judges to practice equal protection, wow this would be an amazing, perhaps
self-propelling step toward actual egalitarianism.
He called his approach to judging pragmatic. His critics called it lawless. "I pay very
little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions," Judge Posner said.
"A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself ! forget about the law !
what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?"
The next thing, he said, was to see if a recent Supreme Court precedent or some other
legal obstacle stood in the way of ruling in favor of that sensible resolution. "And the
answer is that's actually rarely the case," he said. "When you have a Supreme Court case or
something similar, they're often extremely easy to get around."
In The Tyranny Of Words , by Stuart Chase, published in 1938, I read:
Chancellor Kent of New York State, a great legal authority, in a charming burst of
frankness once wrote: 'I saw where justice lay, and the moral issue decided the court half
the time. I then sat down to search the authorities. I might once in a while be embarrased
by a technical rule, but I almost always found principles suited to my view of the case.'
The learned judge used his best judgement, came to a decision, and then ransacked the fat
books for authority to support him. He almost always found it. I would be willing to take
his decision, if he were a good judge, without the ornament of citations. The decision
constitutes the reality of legal machinery; the citations contribute to the magic.
The problem is not one of the federal courts or of the attitude of judges
Shouldn't we nevertheless assume that the attitude of judges will be warped by the
cognitive dissonance between "I'm good at my job" and "I know the system is screwing the
poor"? Shouldn't we expect attitudes like "they're trash anyway" to take root and inevitably
make the fundamental problem worse?
I'm projecting what I know of educators and social workers onto the legal system
Alternatively, judges as a class are heroes of self-reflection and self-discipline.
One reason why I'm skeptical of the legalistic line of justification – the judge just
has to stick with the rules even if they feel the rules are unjust – is the fact that
judges in reality often do not stick with the rules. For example the NY courts have basically
redefined the concept of calendar time in order to practically ignore the constitutional
"speedy trial" requirement (
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/nyregion/justice-denied-bronx-court-system-mired-in-delays.html
).
But I agree it's a political problem as well as a legal one. A few years ago the NYT
published a well researched series about the failures of the US legal system that I found
just devastating, maybe someone can find the link? Also The Divide by Matt Taibbi should
really be an eye-opener. An interesting observation of Taibbi's is that many public defenders
share the system's resentment against their indigent clients. It's truly a class-based system
of justice.
"If officials who take a careful look at the case decide that Harvard should move forward, then
we think that the university should do everything in its power and ability to welcome Ms. Jones here
and support her, and we are indeed happy to play a part in that effort,"ť they continued. "We
have stated our concerns as questions, and we hope they are treated as nothing more nor less than
questions, not as an implicit or explicit judgment against a person and her candidacy"
Ms. Jones, in an interview, said that if anyone at Harvard wanted her to elaborate on the criminal
case or her preparedness for the Ph.D. program, they should have asked. "I just didn't want my
crime to be the lens through which everything I'd done, and hoped for, was seen,"ť she said.
"I knew that I had come from this very dark place "" I was abhorrent to society,"ť she continued.
"But for 20 years, I've tried to do right, because I was still interested in the world, and
because I didn't believe my past made me somehow cosmically un-educatable forever"
The Toughest School
Yale University also rejected Ms. Jones, though it is unclear what role her crime may have played
in its decision; officials would not discuss her application.
But she was courted by the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Michigan; the
University of Kansas; and N.Y.U., which assigned graduate students to send Ms. Jones welcoming notes
on JPay, a prison email app.
She arrived in Manhattan during the back-to-school season of fresh starts, having never used a
smartphone. She wore prison-issue glasses and carried boxes full of jailhouse research notes.
If her new parole officer allows it, Ms. Jones hopes to teach in N.Y.U.'s
prison education program , as a way
to remember where she has been. She also hopes to take the train to Cambridge, Mass., every other
week to sit in on a Harvard
seminar
on the history of crime and punishment in America.
"We're having her come up here for that partly out of a sense of pique,"ť Mr. Johnson said.
At N.Y.U., Nikhil Singh, faculty director of the prison-education program, acknowledged that "Michelle
will have a lot to prove"
"Our hope is that she is actually far, far more resourceful and driven than most college students,"ť
he added, "who take for granted they are supposed to be here."ť
On the Friday before classes started, in a lounge on the N.Y.U. campus, Ms. Jones said any
presumption that she is not ready for a Ph.D. underestimates her own moxie and "sells prison
short"
"People don't survive 20 years of incarceration with any kind of grace unless they have the
discipline to do their reading and writing in the chaos of that place,"ť Ms. Jones said. "Forget
Harvard. I've already graduated from the toughest school there is"
Eli Hager is a staff writer for
The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization that focuses on criminal justice issues.
A version of this article appears in print on September 14, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition
with the headline: Redemption and Rejection: From Prison to Ph.D.
Order Reprints Today's
Paper
Subscribe
"... Civil asset theft is a multi-billion dollar a year moneymaker for all levels of government. Police and prosecutors receive more than their "fair share" of the loot. According to a 2016 study by the Institute for Justice, 43 states allow police and prosecutors to keep at least half of the loot they got from civil asset theft. ..."
"... The Tenaha police are not the only ones targeting those carrying large sums of cash. Anyone traveling with "too much" cash runs the risk of having it stolen by a police officer, since carrying large amounts of cash is treated as evidence of involvement in criminal activity ..."
"... My brother confided that asset forfeiture filled in the budget deficits for his office and the local police department. He also related that defendants pled guilty in more than 90% of his cases because, as a practical matter, the justice system does not have the resources for trial-by-jury as guaranteed in the Constitution. ..."
"... When he could, he used asset forfeiture to avoid trials and force guilty pleas. For example, a man is arrested on drug charges. He is offered a deal: Plead guilty or the prosecutor's office will seize the family house, throwing the defendant's family out on the street. Make a choice: a destitute family or a guilty plea. ..."
"... Money, or a boat or other property (inanimate objects all) is presumed "guilty" of acting (to commit a crime.) This is sophistry of the worst, most childish or evil sort. Guns don't shoot people. Money doesn't buy drugs. ..."
"... An honest system is funded via HONEST and open debate and resolution to these questions. Civil Asset Forfeiture is the epitome of Newspeak, torturing the very meaning of words in order to rationalize what the powerful desire. Civil Asset Forfeiture is nothing but turning the "law enforcement apparatus" into a highwayman robbing people simply because he can. ..."
Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently ordered the Justice Department to increase the use
of civil asset forfeiture, thus once again endorsing an unconstitutional, authoritarian, and
increasingly unpopular policy.
Civil asset forfeiture, which should be called civil asset theft, is the practice of seizing
property believed to be involved in a crime. The government keeps the property even if it never
convicts, or even charges, the owner of the property.
Police can even use civil asset theft to steal from people whose property was used in
criminal activity without the owners' knowledge. Some have even lost their homes because a
renter or houseguest was dealing drugs on the premises behind the owners' backs.
Civil asset theft is a multi-billion dollar a year moneymaker for all levels of government.
Police and prosecutors receive more than their "fair share" of the loot. According to a 2016
study by the Institute for Justice, 43 states allow police and prosecutors to keep at least
half of the loot they got from civil asset theft.
Obviously, this gives police an incentive to aggressively use civil asset theft, even
against those who are not even tangentially involved in a crime. For example, police in Tenaha,
Texas literally engaged in highway robbery -- seizing cash and other items from innocent
motorists -- while police in Detroit once seized every car in an art institute's parking lot.
The official justification for that seizure was that the cars belonged to attendees at an event
for which the institute had failed to get a liquor license.
The Tenaha police are not the only ones targeting those carrying large sums of cash. Anyone
traveling with "too much" cash runs the risk of having it stolen by a police officer, since
carrying large amounts of cash is treated as evidence of involvement in criminal activity
.
Civil asset theft also provides an easy way for the IRS to squeeze more money from the
American taxpayer. As the growing federal debt increases the pressure to increase tax
collections without raising tax rates, the IRS will likely ramp up its use of civil asset
forfeiture.
Growing opposition to the legalized theft called civil asset forfeiture has led 24 states to
pass laws limiting its use. Sadly, but not surprisingly, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is out
of step with this growing consensus. After all, Sessions is a cheerleader for the drug war, and
civil asset theft came into common usage as a tool in the drug war.
President Trump could do the American people a favor by naming a new attorney general who
opposes police state policies like the drug war and police state tactics like civil asset
theft.
The obvious corruption and the extra-legality of such programs is obvious. It is
unfortunate that courts no longer seem to be able to hold the regime accountable in any
meaningful way.
My brother was a prosecuting attorney for decades. His stories suggest our justice system
is rotten to the core.
My brother confided that asset forfeiture filled in the budget deficits for his office and
the local police department. He also related that defendants pled guilty in more than 90% of
his cases because, as a practical matter, the justice system does not have the resources for
trial-by-jury as guaranteed in the Constitution.
When he could, he used asset forfeiture to avoid trials and force guilty pleas. For
example, a man is arrested on drug charges. He is offered a deal: Plead guilty or the
prosecutor's office will seize the family house, throwing the defendant's family out on the
street. Make a choice: a destitute family or a guilty plea.
These tactics did not bother my brother. He said he had a special gift the ability to know
when someone was innocent or when he was guilty. He
was
once counseled by a judge for
his overly aggressive prosecution style. Then, his career came to an end when he aggressively
prosecuted a prominent fellow attorney on a drug charge. My brother knew he was guilty. The
case fell apart when it was uncovered the drugs were planted by a police officer having an
affair with the attorney's wife.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is the same as "gun crime."
Money, or a boat or other property (inanimate objects all) is presumed "guilty" of acting
(to commit a crime.) This is sophistry of the worst, most childish or evil sort. Guns don't
shoot people. Money doesn't buy drugs.
The state will get its pound of flesh. The ONLY questions of relevance are:
1. How much?
2. Who pays?
3. Who decides?
An honest system is funded via HONEST and open debate and resolution to these questions.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is the epitome of Newspeak, torturing the very meaning of words in
order to rationalize what the powerful desire. Civil Asset Forfeiture is nothing but turning
the "law enforcement apparatus" into a highwayman robbing people simply because he can.
Ironically, this is perfectly expected. Social trust grew these past decades (if not
centuries) to a pathological level. Nature is cyclical, and so trust must drain from
society.
Turning cops into
de facto
muggers and politicians (and bureaucrats) into open
looters is a perfect case of people VOLUNTEERING to destroy the very basis for their
authority.
Trust is poised to evaporate. That means people will pull inward and the vast labyrinth of
economic, social and political systems will collapse of its own accord.
This is both unfortunate and natural. Nirvana (Utopia) was never an option. I like(d) a
lot of our present times. But disposing of the bad without harming the good was never an
option. It's all linked. The future has much chaos already baked in.
President Trump could do the American people a favor by naming a new attorney general
who opposes police state policies like the drug war and police state tactics like civil
asset theft.
Definitely dispiriting to know these things about Mr Sessions, and there are several more
just as dismaying. But virtually anyone who replaces him will be 'careless' shall we say on
the immigration issue, and if the immigration issue isn't managed, yesterday, nothing
else–even this–matters. It's right down the sewer for all of us.
@dc.sunsets
Civil Asset Forfeiture is the same as "gun crime."
Money, or a boat or other property (inanimate objects all) is presumed "guilty" of acting
(to commit a crime.) This is sophistry of the worst, most childish or evil sort. Guns don't
shoot people. Money doesn't buy drugs.
The state will get its pound of flesh. The ONLY questions of relevance are:
1. How much?
2. Who pays?
3. Who decides?
An honest system is funded via HONEST and open debate and resolution to these questions.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is the epitome of Newspeak, torturing the very meaning of words in
order to rationalize what the powerful desire. Civil Asset Forfeiture is nothing but turning
the "law enforcement apparatus" into a highwayman robbing people simply because he can.
Ironically, this is perfectly expected. Social trust grew these past decades (if not
centuries) to a pathological level. Nature is cyclical, and so trust must drain from
society.
Turning cops into
de facto
muggers and politicians (and bureaucrats) into open
looters is a perfect case of people VOLUNTEERING to destroy the very basis for their
authority.
Trust is poised to evaporate. That means people will pull inward and the vast labyrinth of
economic, social and political systems will collapse of its own accord.
This is both unfortunate and natural. Nirvana (Utopia) was never an option. I like(d) a
lot of our present times. But disposing of the bad without harming the good was never an
option. It's all linked. The future has much chaos already baked in.
I live in a shitty
neighborhood with lots of welfare people and felons. That group's actually not so bad.
But I stopped saying hi to random neighbors a long time ago. It was leading to too many
physical confrontations and near misses. This place would be the Superdome if Katrina even
winked at it.
"... even if drugs were legalized – the same people would be in jail for something else. ..."
"... Minority Heroin dealers are given intolerable sentences, but Perdue Pharmaceuticals floods the market with opiates with an ever increasing death toll, yet Raymond and Mortimer Sackler are billionaires. Go figure. ..."
"... Police and prison guards' unions = sweet spot of the Dem base (particularly in California) ..."
"... "But terror can be very efficient against a reactionary class which does not want to leave the scene of operations. Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals, and intimidates thousands." Leon Trotsky, 1920 ..."
Mass incarceration in the United States has mushroomed to the point where we look more like the authoritarian regimes of Eastern
Europe and the Middle East than the democracies of Western Europe. Yet it vanished from political discussions in campaigns in the
2016 election. In a new
INET Working Paper , I describe in detail how the US arrived at this point. Drawing on a new model that synthesizes recent research,
I demonstrate how the recent stability in the number of American prisoners indicates that we have settled into a new equilibrium
of mass incarceration. I explain why it will hard to dislodge ourselves from this damaging and shameful status quo.
Mass incarceration started from Nixon's War on Drugs, in a process described vividly by John Ehrlichman, Nixon's domestic-policy
adviser, in 1994:
The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand
what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate
the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We
could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
This was the origin of mass incarceration in the United States, which has been directed at African Americans from Nixon's time
to today, when one third of black men go to prison (Bonczar, 2003; Baum, 2016; Alexander, 2010).
Federal laws were expanded in state laws that ranged from three-strike laws to harsh penalties for possession of small amounts
of marijuana. The laws also shifted the judicial process from judges to prosecutors, from the courtroom to offices where prosecutors
pressure accused people to plea-bargain. The threat of harsh minimum sentences gives prosecutors the option of reducing the charge
to a lesser one if the accused is reluctant to languish in jail awaiting trial-if he or she is unable to make bail-and then face
the possibility of long years in prison. And the shift of power was eased by the pattern of financing. Prosecutors are paid by localities,
while the costs of prisons are borne by states. The trip to the penitentiary does not cost prosecutor at all. "Instead of juries
and trial judges deciding whether this or that defendant merits punishing, prosecutors decide who deserves a trip to the nearest
penitentiary (Stuntz, 2011, 286; Pfaff, 2017, 127)."
In a recent book, Pfaff minimized the role of drug laws in mass incarceration on the grounds that most state prisoners were convicted
of violent crimes; only federal prisoners were predominantly convicted of drug violations. But the importance of public prosecutors
and plea bargains contaminates this inference because the listed crimes in state prisons were produced in plea bargains. Since drug
laws contain so many minimum sentences, plea bargains were driven toward lesser charges that did not fall under the drug laws. The
results of the plea bargains do not indicate why prisoners were originally arrested and charged (Pfaff, 2017).
Both political parties were engaged at different times in legislation that gave rise to mass incarceration. It would seem likely
that they could get together to try to reduce the rate of incarceration, but the prospects are not good in our current political
impasse. The reduction of incarceration always has some risks, and political figures are very risk averse. Some people want to reduce
the cost of prisons to help fund other government programs, but they have not produced many proposals to accomplish this goal or
how to allocate the gains.
As Todd Clear stated in his 2007 book, Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse
:
Imprisonment in America is concentrated among young, poor-dominantly minority-men and (to a lesser extent) women who come from
impoverished communities. The way these young people cycle through our system of prisons and jails, then back into the community,
leaves considerable collateral damage in its wake. Families are disrupted, social networks and other forms of social support are
weakened, health is endangered, labor markets are thinned, and-more important than anything else-children are put at risk of the
depleted human and social capital that promotes delinquency. After a certain point, the collateral effects of these high rates
of incarceration seem to contribute to more crime in these places. Crime fuels a public call for ever-tougher responses to crime.
The increasing way in which the face of criminality is the face of person of color contributes to an unarticulated public sense
that race and crime are closely linked. The politics of race and justice coexist malignantly, sustaining an ever-growing policy
base that guarantees new supplies of penal subjects in a self-sustaining and self-justifying manner (Clear, 2007, 175).
We seem to be in a new equilibrium. It took forty years to get to this point, and it may take at least that long to get back to
what we can consider a normal incarceration rate typical of advanced economies. We have not yet started down that road.
Anyone who thinks it will take 40 years to undo a stroke of the pen, which the war on drugs was, is pissing (in a humanitarian
direction) into the wind.
Removing the prison population would give janet yelllen an enormous migraine.
I'd add that the distinction between violent crime and drug violations misses the mark in another way too. The massive scale
of the US black market, the cruelty of life in US prisons, the massive distrust and animosity between law enforcement and many
communities, the disruption caused to families and communities by mass incarceration, and our high rate of violent crimes are
hardly unrelated phenomena.
I'd wager decriminalization of drugs would lead to a pretty large decrease in supposedly unrelated violent crimes.
True enough, but I'm sure the Prison Industrial Complex loves the idea of long term studies on impact followed by long
term debates on methodology and findings. IMO, it is the monopolistic profitability of corporations like UNICOR that split their
profits and governance with the very same people who control the mass incarceration and competitive bidding laws and policies,
that far outweigh any other factor. Without substantial changes to the monetization and conflict of interest laws at the top,
all the findings in the world are just noise to the entrenched system.
Consider this 2003 Fortune article Business Behind Bars Former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese has a way to slow
the exodus of jobs overseas: Put prisoners to work
Prominent conservatives have been encouraging prisons to put inmates to work for years. Led by Edwin Meese, the former U.S.
Attorney General and head of the Heritage Foundation, and Morgan Reynolds, one of the first President Bush's economic advisors,
they have lobbied for real prison employment by the private sector–not just make-work projects like stamping license plates
or building courthouse furniture. The benefits are difficult to ignore: Businesses get cheap, reliable workers; inmates receive
valuable job training and earn more than they would in traditional prison jobs; and the government offsets the cost of incarceration
and keeps jobs and tax dollars in the U.S.
Who do you think legislators are going to take their guidance from? Former AGs (who just happened to build and grow the prison
workforce), or scholarly studies?
Social engineering described in this post was also a continuation of corporate / elite commercial interes. Free labor–what's
not to like? Legal slavery, more profits from multiple directions of all kinds–legit, corrupt and criminal. Plus serving as a
method to keep the downtrodden unable to respond in a way to create change (COINTELPRO and its contemporary descendants). . .
No way out but through but what will that look like? Comes down to individual understanding and action, no single uniform "solution".
I gradually become more conscious of what I create. It's not a process that can be urged on others. "Be the change . . ."
. . . The politics of race and justice coexist malignantly, sustaining an ever-growing policy base that guarantees new supplies
of penal subjects in a self-sustaining and self-justifying manner (Clear, 2007, 175).
I am pissed at Ford. What a golden opportunity missed. Instead of moving Ford Fusion production to China, it could move production
to a few prisons and use homegrown slaves instead of Chinese ones.
"The increasing way in which the face of criminality is the face of person of color contributes to an unarticulated public
sense that race and crime are closely linked."
so no drug laws means no black inmates?
even if drugs were legalized – the same people would be in jail for something else.
There are no jobs – 40%+ UE Rate for this demographic – so what do you expect them to do?
Eric Gardner was selling cigarettes "for money" – joke crime – yet five cops descended on him.
The reason why the people are getting arrested and jailed for drug crimes is poverty. These people lack the economic opportunity
to bring them out of it, so they drift to illegal enterprises. Even if you made all drug use and distribution/sales legal, this
does not change the economic realities that make people choose an illicit activity in the first place. So they would be arrested
for something else that is illegal.
If there's the political will and power to repeal abusive drug laws, why wouldn't it be (theoretically) possible to do the
same with laws that target the poor?
When I was growing up in the "bad old days" of '70's NYC, police officers would have rightfully laughed in the face of of a
superior or elected official who told them to go after people selling "loosies" (a la Eric Garner).
I'm not saying it will happen, but popular revolts could go a long way toward loosening the vise on poor communities.
Recreational Cannabis is legal in Colorado. It is a state granted monopoly. Already Colorado is cracking down on home grown
weed production. There is legalization, and there is state granted monopoly legalization. The outcome for poor people is the same.
Cigarettes are legal, yet Eric Gardner was murdered for selling them. Go figure.
Minority Heroin dealers are given intolerable sentences, but Perdue Pharmaceuticals floods the market with opiates with
an ever increasing death toll, yet Raymond and Mortimer Sackler are billionaires. Go figure.
We live in a mafia culture. It's called ethnic privilege. Drugs are already legalized for the ethnically privileged. Mass incarceration,
Genocide by Other Means, for the ethnically unprivileged. Go figure!
I believe that we, the 80% , are being classed as the present day, Neo-Peasants and Neo-Kulaks. (Hillbillies, working class,
uneducated, not woke, Nazis, deplorables, reactionaries, homeless, right-wing, religious bigots, addicts, petty criminals, progressives,
Bernie-bros, conspiracy nuts ..) by the Neo-Apparatchiks.
There is a Revolution going on! It is being waged against us .
"During 1920–50, the leaders of the Communist Party considered repression to be a tool that was to be used for securing the
normal functioning of the Soviet state system, as well as for preserving and strengthening their positions within their social
base, the (The 20%) Working Class. (The Bolshevik Leadership were not really "working class", but usually, "Intellectuals"!) (
peasants , who were NOT considered "working class", represented 80%!!!! of the USSR population then ).
The GULAG system was introduced in order to isolate and eliminate class-alien, socially dangerous, disruptive, suspicious,
and other disloyal elements, whose deeds and thoughts were not contributing to the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Forced labor (was used) as a "method of reeducation" ."
"But terror can be very efficient against a reactionary class which does not want to leave the scene of operations. Intimidation
is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious
war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their
will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals, and intimidates thousands." Leon Trotsky, 1920
Right from the start, tell your lawyer all that you know. Remember, lawyers must
maintain confidential relationships. Waiting until the last minute to communicate
something with your lawyer wastes money.
Brush up on matters related to your legal affairs. Ask good questions and establish
intelligent communication. Keep copies of important documents in your own files.
Be certain you've found
the lawyer
who's right for you
. Changing lawyers after the legal process has started can be
very expensive.
Understand the
fee agreement
you and your lawyer agree upon, and question unclear charges before
you pay them. Insist your lawyer honors thrift if out-of-pocket expenses are part of the
fee agreement.
Ask if there's anything you can do or gather to help the process. Be prepared and
honor deadlines at all your meetings.
Ask your lawyer about all alternatives to the dispute's resolution.
This article will highlight some
of the best tips for working with a lawyer.
Although it may seem like a strained relationship right off the bat, if you can form a
solid bond with your legal representative, it may have a big impact on the future success
of your case. If you feel comfortable working with your lawyer, and, in turn, your attorney
feels comfortable working with you, it can do wonders for your case, not to mention reduce
the stress that you will likely be putting on yourself when at trial.
However, like any type of relationship, the relationship that you have when working with
a lawyer is a two way street, meaning that your attorney will have to work at it just as
much as you will. Lawyers can work on attorney-client relationships in many ways, but
perhaps the best means is to keep lines of communication open. A good attorney will always
update you with necessary information and also be able to answer questions for you in a
timely fashion. In addition, good attorneys will also help you prepare for important
moments in your case, like testifying in court or answering questions at a deposition.
As just mentioned, you too will also have a great impact on the working relationship
that you have with a lawyer. There are plenty of steps that you can take that will better
the workflow and ultimately save you time and money, and may even increase your chances of
winning your case.
Pass on pertinent information
. After you have gone through the process of
selecting and hiring a lawyer to represent you in your case, you should round up every
scrap of information that is relevant to your case and give it all to your attorney. Give
as much information as possible, even if you think it may not be that pertinent. Lawyers
are much like human sieves when it comes to information; they can sort out what will be
needed in the lawsuit much better than you will be able to. The information that they find
may be used to bolster certain parts of your case. In addition, some types of information
can also be used to predict what kinds of arguments will be brought against your case.
Be sure to keep copies of all the information that you give your lawyer, though, in case
something terrible happens like a fire at the law office.
Do what is asked
. Not only should you do what your lawyer asks you to do, but you
should also do it well. At the beginning of your legal representation, your attorney will
most likely ask you to write down everything that has happened up until you hired your
attorney. They do this for many reasons, but perhaps the most important is to make sure
that they file your case on time. Often, if you do not complete this timeline, the lawyer
may miss crucial deadlines that could stop your case before it starts.
Get requested information
. You will often have better and easier access to
certain types of records and information (such as medical histories and reports) than your
attorney will. If your lawyer asks you to obtain any of these documents, you should do so
as quickly as possible. Remember, the law typically establishes tight deadlines that have
harsh consequences if not met.
Respond to your lawyer quickly
. As just mentioned, there are numerous deadlines
in any case that must be met by your attorney. If your lawyer asks you to do something or
get a document, he or she probably has a very good reason for asking you to do so. If you
cannot respond in a timely manner to your attorney (perhaps you are working out of town for
work for two weeks), be sure to tell your attorney about your situation. It will look much
better for your case if your attorney is able to ask for an extension of a deadline rather
than just missing it with no explanation.
Know your schedule and tell your attorney.
When working with a lawyer on your
lawsuit, you will often need to be in attendance or participate in many parts of your case.
For example, in a personal injury case, you may be called upon to answer questions at a
deposition about the accident that injured you or about the extent of your injuries. These
depositions and other procedures are often scheduled months in advance. If your work or
personal schedule will call you away from town at a critical time, let your attorney know
so that he or she has the opportunity to try to reschedule the procedure.
Be honest
. The more open and honest you are with your attorney, the better your
case will go. If you were perhaps a little bit tipsy when you were rear-ended by the truck
that caused you have severe back pain, you must tell your attorney this. Even if the issue
is never brought up during your case, the more that your attorney knows, the better he or
she will be able to prepare for your case. It is better for you to be a little embarrassed
about telling the truth than it is for your attorney to be blindsided by an argument he
never considered before hearing it in court.
Ask for explanations
. Sometimes lawyers get so caught up in the legal world that
they forget that most people have not heard of words like "
res ipsa loquitur,
"
"mandatory pre-trial arbitration," or "
stare decisis.
" If you are unfamiliar with
what is going on in your case, ask for an explanation from your attorney. The more you
understand about what is going on, the more you will be able to make important decisions
about your case.
Working with your lawyer while going through a divorce can be aggravating at times. While you want
to get everything over and done with as quickly as possible, it can seem like it is taking forever.
Sometimes this is due to the legal process, and other times it may be due to an over-booked lawyer.
So how do you know if your lawyer is really working for you or not? And what can you do if your lawyer
isn't handling everything properly? Keep reading to find out the answers to these questions and more.
"... About 2.4 million people live behind bars in America - the highest number in the world. That's a little more than 0.7% of the population and more than 700 for every 100,000 people. The area of the U.S. is bigger than China, a country that dwarfs the U.S. general population by more than four times. Also note how tiny Canada looks next to the U.S. ..."
"... As a former prosecutor we had a grotesquely unfair advantage It was policy to charge someone with the highest possible charge, knowing that we would plead to something much lower. It was even added to the jacket by screening DA's what was recommended to accept. ..."
"... About this quote I pulled here. What you are talking about is called "charge stacking," and prosecutors do it because they can strong arm everyone into a conviction, then they can build political careers on. Oftentimes, they go to run for AG offices based on their stellar records that the public is duped into thinking actually means something. ..."
When it comes to America's high incarceration rate-now about five times what it was in 1970-there's the Standard Story, and then
there's the truth.
The Standard Story is the one that has been propagated for years in mainstream-media outlets and by activists. It holds that the
War on Drugs is virtually the sole culprit-that incarceration rose merely because America decided to start imprisoning nonviolent,
low-level drug offenders for absurd amounts of time. It posits the simple solution of reducing or eliminating the sentences for these
victimless crimes.
The truth, by contrast, is that about half of prisoners were convicted of violent offenses, and that some of the others committed
violence but pleaded guilty to lesser offenses. Even the fifth of prisoners who are locked up for drugs tend to be mid-level dealers,
not users or low-level distributors. And, while decades-long sentences make the news, most prisoners who committed crimes not involving
the most serious violence are out within a year or two. In other words, while incarceration has undoubtedly soared-even relative
to crime ,
which has dropped substantially since the early 1990s-our propensity to throw people in prison has simply not reached the heights
of ridiculousness that many assume.
There is still "low-hanging fruit" to be had by releasing some drug offenders or subtly redefining crimes (such as changing the
dollar-value threshold separating misdemeanor from felony theft), but this will not get America anywhere near the incarceration rate
it had decades ago or the rates that prevail elsewhere in the developed world. Bigger reductions would require speeding the release-or
declining to imprison-people who committed crimes that left very real victims, which is not so obviously a desirable outcome.
Until recently, few were discussing this reality aside from a handful of conservative commentators such as the Manhattan Institute's
Heather Mac Donald . These people typically argued that those in prison mostly deserve to be there, and that dramatic reductions
to the incarceration rate run an intolerably high risk of increasing crime. But in the last several years a number of reform-minded
scholars and pundits have tried to make a
public case for such reductions
even in full view of the facts.
The role of the drug war isn't the only issue on which Pfaff departs from the Standard Story. He also disputes the idea that the
typical prisoner is spending much more time behind bars than he used to. In Pfaff's view, the reason for our skyrocketing incarceration
rate is that prosecutors have become more likely to file felony charges following an arrest, rather than that those convicted are
being locked up for longer periods of time.
This is considerably more contentious among those who study imprisonment; unlike the percentage of prisoners serving time for
drugs, it's not something one can simply look up in a Justice Department report. Pfaff is at odds with the prestigious
National
Academy of Sciences , for instance, when he all but dismisses the role of time served. The debate involves competing data sources
and intricate mathematical simulations.
But if prosecutors might not be the sole driver of mass incarceration, no one denies that they are a big one. And Pfaff
expertly lays out how this happened so that we can see if it's a process we can live with.
As is well-known, the crime explosion of the late 1960s through the early '90s inspired lawmakers to adopt a get-tough approach,
and this entailed reining in judges, for instance through mandatory-minimum laws. The concept is not inherently flawed: there are
unique factors at play in each case, but in general, people who commit the same crime should receive similar punishments. The punishment
should depend on the law, not the judge's personal sense of justice or his like or dislike of the defendant. But there were two problems
with these laws as they actually played out.
First, especially at the federal level, many minimums are so high that no one really thinks they're fair and people are rarely
sentenced to them. Instead, prosecutors use them as a threat to get defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges or testify against
fellow criminals. (About 95 percent of cases end in plea deals rather than trials today.) In other words, they operate as a roundabout
way to gut defendants' constitutional rights: if you make the prosecution prove its case at trial and invoke your right to remain
silent about criminal activities you participated in, you receive a
patently unfair sentence
. Incredibly, the federal prosecutors' lobby has
defended the current mandatory minimums explicitly on these grounds .
Second, and relatedly, the minimums didn't eliminate discretion from the system: prosecutors still have plenty. A prosecutor often
can decide how much time a defendant should serve and then put together a mix of charges that will require the judge to give a sentence
in that ballpark. The law can offer an impressive buffet of overlapping statutes that cover the conduct a defendant is accused of.
And in addition to holding enormous discretion, prosecutors face a number of incentives that are far from ideal. District attorneys
are typically elected and want to avoid going easy on a Willie Horton or a Brock Turner. The elections are county-wide, giving conservative
suburban areas a lot of say as to how high crime in inner cities is handled, even though suburbanites bear little of the cost of
crime or of incarceration. Prosecutors also face little resistance, because judges normally accept plea deals and most defendants
rely on public defenders, which are underfunded. In 43 states defendants have to pay at least some of the costs associated with their
"state-provided" lawyer.
Moreover, what we call "the justice system" is really a haphazard mashup of city, county, state, and federal agencies. Federal
prisons receive a lot of attention but hold just 13 percent of prisoners. In the states, meanwhile, counties generally pay for probation
and short jail stays while the state pays for the cost of imprisonment-creating an incentive for prosecutors to overuse the latter.
Reading Pfaff's characterization of who's serving how much time in prison these days-mainly violent offenders, mainly short sentences-one
is tempted to wonder what the big deal is. Maybe we should just content ourselves with picking the "low-hanging fruit." Yet it's
hard to accept our sky-high incarceration rate knowing it's produced by the dysfunctional system Pfaff describes. Realigning the
incentives in that system would be a worthwhile endeavor whether it cut incarceration or not.
Conservatives intuitively understood the need to rein in judges' discretion decades ago; perhaps the same thing could be done
for prosecutors today. Pfaff notes that New Jersey has given its prosecutors detailed guidelines as to the plea deals they are allowed
to strike, with judges able to invalidate any deals that break the rules; they "look almost exactly like the guidelines that many
states use to regulate judicial sentencing." This is a promising idea, though the guidelines would have to be written carefully to
avoid unintended results. (The New Jersey guidelines initially made it hard for urban prosecutors to give lighter sentences in "school
zone" cases, for example, which was a problem because 76 percent of Newark is considered a school zone.)
Other options: cut mandatory sentences to reduce the threats prosecutors can make to extract plea deals; require prosecutors to
disclose the threats they made so that judges can review them; balance out the incentives facing county prosecutors by paying counties
to keep people out of state prison; appoint prosecutors instead of electing them; let cities and suburbs choose their prosecutors
separately; fund public defenders adequately. Each of these moves would align incentives in a sensible way rather than seeking to
cut incarceration per se.
And on a deeper level Pfaff prompts us to consider more carefully the exact tradeoffs we're willing to make between incarceration
and crime. One study, for instance, found that between 1978 and 1990, locking up an extra person for a year stopped 2.5 violent crimes
and 11.4 property crimes. Thanks to diminishing marginal returns, those numbers fell to 0.3 and 2.7 respectively in the 1991–2004
period. Are the latter numbers worthwhile given the cost to taxpayers, and to offenders and their families? Is the payoff even lower
today? And what if, for a given amount of money, you could reduce crime 20 percent more by hiring more cops than by incarcerating
more offenders, as a different study contended?
For these reasons, Pfaff suggests we reject the assumption that reforms are worthwhile only if they don't increase crime at all.
It's a point worth taking to heart as one considers some of Pfaff's other reforms, the ones more directly targeted at reducing incarceration.
Risk-assessment tools are one
promising development. Modern statistics allow us to calculate the chances that a given prisoner will reoffend with a reasonable
degree of accuracy, based on various characteristics. There are legitimate complaints about these tools (though Pfaff takes
too seriously an
allegation of racial bias by the journalism outfit ProPublica), but they hold out the promise of focusing incarceration on the people
who really need to be locked up lest they continue to offend. They are a dramatic improvement over the older, cruder tools like "three
strikes" laws.
In a somewhat similar vein, pilot programs could experiment with releasing offenders and closely monitoring them, like the Hawaii
HOPE program does for drug offenders, giving them repeated drug tests and a "swift, certain, and fair" jail stay for minor lapses.
Not all of the ideas Pfaff explores are home runs; I have trouble imagining an American state in which there's a "cap-and-trade"
system for prison capacity. But in general, these are far more serious and considered proposals for cutting incarceration than what
we have seen from almost anyone else.
Pfaff's book is targeted primarily at reformers, not skeptics. He believes the reformers misunderstand the problem and hence cannot
solve it. He notes, for example, that many efforts to cut sentences for low-level offenders are coupled with increased sentences
for those who commit worse crimes-which would address the problem described in the Standard Story but not the reality we actually
face.
And in debunking the myth of nonviolent drug offenders haphazardly locked away for long periods of time, of course, he runs the
risk of inadvertently convincing his audience there really isn't much of a problem. He's to be commended for taking that risk.
But, by forthrightly explaining the true nature of incarceration in America before laying out his case for reform, Pfaff poses
a serious challenge for the skeptics, too. Unlike so many activists and op-ed writers, Pfaff cannot be waved away with a handful
of simple statistics demonstrating that, no, our high incarceration rate isn't the result of locking up first-time offenders caught
smoking pot. He knows that, and still sees serious problems with the status quo. His ideas deserve a close look.
Kevin Drum (one of the few liberal authors I read) has made a very convincing case about the lead hypothesis, where exposure to
lead notable increases in crime. I've always found it a convincing argument. Combined with other factors (e.g., massive job losses
in various areas) caused the spike in crime. Apparently, this isn't the first time something like this has happened too. Crime
apparently skyrocketed in the late 1800s too.
Highest to Lowest – Prison Population Total Globally
Please use drop down menu 1 to choose the category of data you wish to view, and then wait for the page to reload. Once the
page has reloaded please choose the continent/region from drop down menu 2 and then press apply.
Ranking – Title – Prison Population Total
1 – United States of America 2 228 424
2 – China 1 701 344
3 – Russian Federation 672 100
4 – Brazil 581 507
JAN. 24, 2014 This World Map Shows The Enormity Of America's Prison Problem
About 2.4 million people live behind bars in America - the highest number in the world. That's a little more than 0.7%
of the population and more than 700 for every 100,000 people. The area of the U.S. is bigger than China, a country that dwarfs
the U.S. general population by more than four times. Also note how tiny Canada looks next to the U.S.
October 25, 2016 Prison Food Contractors Funded Efforts To Combat Marijuana Legalization
All of these organizations have a distinct interest in keeping nonviolent people in jail. So, it should come as no surprise
a prison contractor is working to keep marijuana illegal.
As a former prosecutor we had a grotesquely unfair advantage It was policy to charge someone with the highest possible charge,
knowing that we would plead to something much lower. It was even added to the jacket by screening DA's what was recommended to
accept.
So someone would be looking at a charge of 'simple possession x4' meaning life in prison without any chance of getting out.
If they pled with in 2 months it would be dropped to X1 so 2-4 years. Then ever two months the minimum acceptable time served
would basically double.
You had to be an absolute idiot to fail to plead. Which then kicks in multiple offender charges the next time.
Nothing like starting off your career as an attorney sending drug addicts to prison for life.
I like this because it states the problem and makes reasonable suggestions about how to fix it without getting too political.
One thing that wasn't mentioned though was lobbying by private contractors that own or service prisons, thus creating a profit
motive (and campaign contribution motive) for making more things imprisonable offences.
Beyond that, the few people I've known that have spent time in prison also had substance abuse issues (DUI, theft to support
a habit, getting in a fight while drunk, etc ) and a general disposition to not care about the long term consequences of their
actions. Perhaps providing counseling and mental health care services could help. Or perhaps not, but it is a question worth exploring.
Up through the turn of the century, prosecutors were extremely stressed dealing with the huge volume of crime so they tried to
plea bargain a lot of charges. With the lower crime rates in this century, prosecutors have more time on their hands to get tough.
"Instead, prosecutors use them as a threat to get defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges or testify against fellow
criminals. (About 95 percent of cases end in plea deals rather than trials today.)"
This post is typically clueless conservative garbage about the real issues in the justice system. There's a few other shills
I'd love to call out for their dishonesty as "researchers" because they miraculously can't even find out the most basic facts
or controversies on the subject, but it just takes too much energy. However, it just borders on journalistic malpractice, and
it needs to stop.
About this quote I pulled here. What you are talking about is called "charge stacking," and prosecutors do it because they
can strong arm everyone into a conviction, then they can build political careers on. Oftentimes, they go to run for AG offices
based on their stellar records that the public is duped into thinking actually means something.
We have one out our way whose family is reportedly involved in a whole lot of shady business dealings, and he used his job
to go after politicians who promised to clean house. I could go on forever about his unbelievably stupid press conferences about
irrelevant stuff as if they were a papal announcement. He was pushing to do the AG promotion too. Then again, our former governor
was said to be in the mob, so par for the course around here.
Don't even get me started on the judges in our state serving 30 year sentences for bribery where they threw thousands of kids
in jail for nothing. I think they made millions in destroying these kids lives. I have heard crickets about that scandal and other
even funnier ones on any conservative site. It's like coming to an alternate reality when I see articles like this.
Speaking of funny scandals, how about the kid who was charged with wiretapping who had just used his tablet to record bullies
in class after no one in the school administration would do anything about them? Instead of addressing his concerns, they charged
him with a felony! This seems rational and totally legal to you? Know what the sheriff or police authorities said when they go
called out on that one in the media? No one had any idea how that got in the paperwork .You can't make this sh** up. If they had
never made the papers, chances are the kid would have spent time in jail or been forced to plea bargain. Why do you defend things
like this? Why is it okay that this and worse goes on and is justified as necessary? Would you feel it was necessary if they did
it to you? Heather MacDonald et al needs to take off her rose-colored glasses and see what's really going down.
But anyway, what the prosecutors do (and did in my case) was withhold and/or ignore exculpatory evidence (or perhaps more accurately,
reinterpret what evidence they had to come to the opposite conclusions than what the evidence said), then added manufactured evidence
to create outrageous charges that the prosecutor even admitted to my lawyer was never meant to go to trial because he couldn't
prove anything and everyone would have to even more formally perjure themselves. This would be things like people coming forward
saying they knew me for years when they didn't know me at all, the kind of stuff that you see go on and wonder if it's even possible
to get a fair trial no matter how innocent you are. But you're good with that, right? That seems like a reasonable thing for witnesses
to do?
Better yet, he flipped the case so I ended up in a situation where the burden of proof was legally on me and I wasn't allowed
to have any defending witnesses, while the actual law requires the prosecution to prove its case in a courtroom and call a reasonable
defense. The one judge in my case was also reprimanded for taking bribes in a different case, and she went really cheap, only
a couple of hundred dollars, to drop charges that the AG later reinstated.
"while incarceration has undoubtedly soared-even relative to crime, which has dropped substantially since the early 1990s"
Do you think the two (higher rates of incarceration/lower crime) are unconnected?"
**************
Good point to ponder. I remember back when offenders would be released over & over again to commit the same crimes. They still
do to some degree, but people got fed up. And we ended up with the "3 strikes & you're out laws."
Non violent offenders should make restitution &/or be put to work. That especially goes for white collar crime. Why in the
world should taxpayers have fed & housed Martha Stewart? Seriously.
I had a family member who worked in a "medium security" prison with rapists, child molesters, organized crime members, etc.
Trust me, those folks needed to stay locked up. They all had a story & excuses but deep down they knew they were guilty & were
pretty much sociopaths. Very little conscience at work.
[May 08, 2017] the grand jury was at first seen as a means of resisting government intrusion and as an instrument of investigation into alleged offenses.
In the United States, the grand jury was at first seen as a means of resisting government intrusion
and as an instrument of investigation into alleged offenses. These beliefs have given grand juries
almost uncontrolled power. Such power became evident in the case of Hale v. Henkle. In that
case, a witness was held in contempt for his refusal to answer questions by the grand jury, particularly
because he asked to know the specific charges against the accused.17
Whereas trial juries, or "petit juries," may not hear evidence seized illegally, this is not true
of grand juries. In fact, the grand jury has been given the right to use rumors, hearsay, or any
means to obtain information. The reason the courts have given grand juries such powers is that the
grand jury procedure is not an adversary trial seeking to determine guilt or innocence. Instead,
the grand jury examines whether or not a crime has been committed. The grand jury cannot find guilt
or innocence.18
A witness before a grand jury may not have a lawyer on the grounds that the grand jury procedure
is not a trial and the witness is only being asked to help the grand jury, short of self-incrimination.
The right against self-incrimination is protected by the Fifth Amendment and is valid even during
a grand jury hearing unless the prosecutor offers the witness immunity from punishment. The trouble
with such "immunity" is that prosecutors later argue that the immunity covers only a limited, narrow
area of conduct. Such an interpretation allows prosecutors to indict a witness despite so-called
immunity by simply inventing some other charge on which to indict the "immunized" witness.19
In Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court decided that newspaper reporters are not protected
from inquiry by a grand jury concerning their confidential sources of information. The Court wrote,
"Neither the First Amendment nor any other constitutional provision protects the average citizen
from disclosing to a grand jury information that he has received in confidence."20
Based on that decision, the grand jury system has defeated the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
Approximate number of innocent Americans in prison
Considering that the Bureau of Justice Statistics
reports that over 2.2 million people, or more specifically, 2,236,871 convicts, are in our jails
and prisons, it is evident that if only 0.5 percent of the prisoners are innocent, then 11,184 innocent
people would be so victimized. If 1 percent of all prisoners are innocent, then the criminal justice
system will have victimized 22,237 citizens; and if 2 percent of prisoners are innocent, then our
(in)justice system is destroying the lives of 44,474 people. Given the large number of exonerations
resulting from DNA testing, it is highly likely that at least 10 percent of incarcerated individuals
are innocent, as estimated by the Rev. James McCloskey, the founder of Centurion Ministries, an organization
devoted to freeing the innocent from American prisons.
... ... ...
The First Amendment begins by guaranteeing freedom of religion. Yet, this freedom is also under
attack by the judiciary by both lower courts and the courts of appeal. Thus, religious workers have
been forced to testify to grand juries even if such testimony violates their conscience and religious
beliefs. In People v. Woodruff, the New York Appellate Court denied a claim of privilege
by a member of a religious minority who told the court that the compulsion to testify would do violence
to her religious principles.22
It is remarkable that those who seek to deprive the American people of the rights enshrined in
the Constitution claim to act on behalf of "the people," whom they seek to deprive of these rights.
THE PETIT JURY
While juries were easily assembled in
earlier centuries, the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have seen a considerable decline in Americans'
willingness to serve on juries. In fact, only 46 percent of people summoned to jury duty appear willingly,
according to the National Center for State Courts. This situation has led judges to use advertisements
and even threats of contempt proceedings to increase the potential jury pools needed to conduct trials.
In Lee County, North Carolina, a judge sent deputy sheriffs to deliver jury summonses at random in
parking lots because trials could not begin for lack of jurors. In Los Angeles, "no-shows"-that is,
those who have received a summons for jury duty but fail to report-are visited by sheriff's deputies
at home with orders to appear in court and explain their failure to report for jury duty. Even posters
showing movie stars encouraging jury duty are used in some jurisdictions to encourage participation.23
Another means of creating greater willingness to serve on juries has been the development of the
anonymous jury. Such a jury has been used in only a limited number of cases. Normally, the names,
Prison
guards,
unionized
and
politically
influential,
are
a
major
force
in
the
growth
of
the
American
prison
industry.
Prison
guard
unions
have
grown
immensely
since
1980,
when
the
membership
was
no
more
than
abut
2,
000
guards.
Since
then,
the
prison
guard
union
in
California
alone
has
reached
25,
000.
American
prison
guards
earn
an
average
salary
of
$36,
000
a
year,
which
is
34
percent
below
the
median
American
income
of
$48,
000
in
2007.
According
to
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
there
were
about
500,
000
"correctional
officers"
working
in
the
United
States
in
2007.
Of
those,
18,
000
were
federal
employees;
the
others
worked
for
state
and
county
governments.
Because
of
the
constantly
rising
rates
of
incarceration,
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
estimates
a
growth
for
this
occupation
of
16
percent
between
2007
and
2014.
Of
course,
the
downturn
in
the
American
economy
as
of
2009
may
make
such
growth
impossible,
for
economics
has
frequently
determined
results
quite
different
from
those
expected.
21
In
view
of
the
large
membership
in
the
prison
guards
unions,
the
unions
have
considerable
clout
at
election
time.
Because
the
relatives
and
friends
of
guards
are
also
voters,
state
legislators
can
seldom
risk
antagonizing
the
prison
guard
unions
if
they
seek
reelection.
Such
election
concerns
are
particularly
true
in
California,
where
prison
guard
unions
have
been
a
major
force
in
the
growth
of
the
prison
industry.
The
California
Correctional
Peace
Officers
Association
funnels
money
to
politicians
to
ensure
a
"lock
'em
up"
policy
in
the
state.
The
growth
in
political
clout
is
best
illustrated
by
the
growth
of
the
prison
guard
union,
which
collects
about
$15
million
in
union
dues
each
year,
leading
to
contributions
to
gubernatorial
candidates
of
at
least
$1.
5
million.
The
union
also
finances
a
so-
called
Crime
Victims
Political
Action
Committee,
which
in
turn
supplies
political
candidates
in
California
with
money
toward
their
campaigns.
Prison
guard
unions
also
demand
laws
that
lead
to
mandatory
life
sentences
as
well
as
longer
sentences
for
all
offenders.
While
California
is
one
example
of
the
influence
of
prison
guard
unions,
these
tactics
are
used
in
every
state.
Lawmakers
who
want
to
keep
their
jobs
know
that
it
is
dangerous
to
oppose
union
demands.
Therefore,
prison
guard
unions
are
yet
one
more
factor
contributing
to
the
huge
incarceration
rate
experienced
in
the
United
States.
[May 03, 2017] Truble with DNS tests and other forensic evidence tests: 90 percent of crime labs in the United States are affiliated with law enforcement agencies by scientists who seek to please the police departments employing them. One of the worst examples of the fraud committed by forensic scientists involved Joyce Gilchrist, who for years testified at trials in the courts of Oklahoma City, claiming that she had made scientific tests that proved the guilt of those accused of murder, rape, and other crimes of violence. Between 1980 and 2001, Gilchrist had testified in thousands of cases, including 23 in which defendants were sentenced to death. Eleven of those sent to death row were executed on the basis of Gilchrist's scientific evidence. In 2001, she was dismissed from her job after the FBI found that she had deliberately withheld evidence from the defense, claimed to have achieved scientific results that no other scientist had ever achieved, and failed to perform tests that might have cleared the accused.
Gilchrist's fraud was discovered after DNA testing proved that she had sent Jeffrey Pierce to prison for 65 years for a rape that
Pierce had nothing to do with. Then, it was found that Robert Lee Miller was innocent of a murder attributed to him by Gilchrist's
science while the same Gilchrist had cleared the real killer. Gilchrist had been suspected of fraud for years, but the attorneys
who accused her were ignored by the judges and the prosecutors and even the forensic scientists to whom the complaints were made.
It has been estimated that many prisoners who confessed to crimes they did not commit did so in order to lessen sentences they would
otherwise have received by reason of Gilchrist's manipulations. 23
In West Virginia, Fred Zane, a police forensic specialist, falsified DNA tests that he had never carried out. His false report
led to the conviction of Glen Dale Woodall, who was convicted of two abduction rapes although he had nothing to do with the crimes.
His lawyers succeeded in having the DNA test done over again by another laboratory; the test results showed that Woodall could not
have committed these rapes. This led to the investigation of Zane's work, with the result that in 133 cases Zane had either never
carried out any lab work or reported inconclusive results as certain results. 24
In January 2001, a lawsuit against the city of Chicago included a report revealing that a supervisor at the Illinois State Police
crime lab had given false testimony in nine cases, including trials that resulted in wrongful rape convictions of three Chicago men.
The supervisor of the crime lab, Pamela Fish, deliberately withheld evidence that would have served to establish the innocence of
John Willis, falsely accused of numerous rapes. Willis was sentenced to 100 years in prison and labeled "the beauty shop rapist"
by the media, always in a hurry to convict innocent people. When DNA tests proved seven years later that not Willis but another man
had committed the rapes, Willis was paid $2.6 million in compensation and Fish was fired. Consequent examination of the Illinois
crime lab work revealed widespread fraud promoted by that laboratory. The scientists who worked there regarded themselves as members
of the prosecution and were eager to please the police and the district attorneys who employed them. Such bias is found in almost
all states, since crime labs are usually not independent of the prosecutors. In fact, 90 percent of crime labs in the United States
are affiliated with law enforcement agencies and therefore report
whatever prosecutors want to hear. Governor Ryan suspended the death penalty in Illinois after it was revealed that 13 of the
24 men on death row were innocent, as proved by DNA test results.25
Dr. Ralph Erdmann worked as a medical examiner in more than 40 rural counties in Texas from the early 1980s until September 1992,
when he pleaded "no contest" to seven felony counts of falsifying autopsies in three Texas counties. He was sentenced to 10 years'
probation and had to return $17,000 he received for examinations never performed. Erdmann repeatedly falsified toxicology reports
to please prosecutors who sanctioned his deceit so they could win their cases, resulting in imprisonment and the death penalty for
innocent people. Erdmann also testified falsely to release criminals who were friends of district attorneys.26
In 1993, Willie Simpson was charged with the murder of Phillip Mancini, a Vineland, New Jersey, high school teacher. Dr. Larry
Mapow, the medical examiner in Cumberland County, New Jersey, concluded that Mancini had been killed by several blows to the head
with a blunt instrument. When the Mancini family asked another pathologist to conduct another autopsy, the pathologist, Dr. Claus
Speth, discovered that Mancini had died from two bullets and not from blows to the head. In another New Jersey case, Willie Simpson
was charged with the murder of Robert Webb. The medical examiner claimed that Simpson had killed Webb with a gunshot to the head.
Yet, Dr. Michael Baden, the foremost medical examiner in the country, concluded that Webb was killed by a brick and not a gunshot.
Baden concluded that "there is not a shred of evidence that Webb was killed by means of a gun." It then turned out that another man,
not Simpson, had killed Webb.27
Perhaps one of the most atrocious miscarriages of justice was inflicted on Barry Beach, a resident of Poplar, Montana. Beach was
sentenced to 100 years in prison when a jury convicted him in 1984 of killing 17-year-old Kimberly Nees in 1979. That conviction
was obtained by a prosecutor in the attorney general's office, Marc Racicot, who was guilty of "prosecutorial misconduct", a phrase
meaning that he deliberately railroaded Beach into prison. Racicot later became governor of Montana.
The evidence is that Beach had nothing to do with the murder of Nees but that she was killed by a group of girls who had together
murdered Nees and left their footprints and fingerprints all over the car in which they transported the dead body to a nearby river.
In fact, the girls who murdered Nees confessed having done so to a number of Poplar residents. Still, the police and prosecutors
did not want to hear that. Instead, Beach was tortured into confessing to the crime.
"... It's happening because the city's public defenders, attorneys who are supposed to represent those who can't afford private lawyers, have been staging a kind of protest. They say they are so overworked and underfunded, they don't have the time or resources to defend their clients properly, so they have been refusing to represent people charged with some of the most serious crimes – rapes, robberies, and murder. ..."
"... Donald Gamble: Good to see you. You look so good. ..."
"... Grandma: You do too baby. ..."
"... Donald Gamble: You look so good. You looking young, girl. ..."
"... Donald Gamble: You see I got my teeth got knocked out? ..."
"... Grandma: That's pathetic. ..."
"... Donald Gamble: It'll be alright. ..."
"... Grandma: It's time for you to have some good luck. ..."
"... My question is, when they refuse to take cases because of lack of resources, what happens to the defendants? If they request a court appointed attorney and none is available, I don't think they can even be arraigned without an attorney meaning no bail is ever set. So, do they just sit in jail, unconvicted, indefinitely? ..."
Inside NOLA public defenders' decision to refuse felony cases
New Orleans' chief public defender tells Anderson Cooper that until he can ensure every client
gets the defense they deserve, he'll continue to turn cases away
How do 50 lawyers handle 22,000 cases? They can't. New Orleans public defenders say the criminal
justice system needs urgent reform.
New Orleans public defenders admit they've not been able to adequately represent all their
clients and innocent people have gone to jail.
"A lawyer poorly resourced can cause irreparable harm to a client," says Chief NOLA Public
Defender Derwyn Bunton.
In the past year hundreds of people accused
of crimes in New Orleans have been stuck in jail - defenseless - denied their constitutional right
to a lawyer.
It's happening because the city's public defenders, attorneys who are supposed to represent those
who can't afford private lawyers, have been staging a kind of protest. They say they are so overworked
and underfunded, they don't have the time or resources to defend their clients properly, so they
have been refusing to represent people charged with some of the most serious crimes – rapes, robberies,
and murder.
The man who made this startling decision is the chief public defender Derwyn Bunton. He says he
didn't have a choice because the criminal justice system in America is so broken, it's become just
a criminal processing system.
New Orleans Chief Public Defender Derwyn
Bunton CBS News
Anderson Cooper: What does that mean, a processing system?
Derwyn Bunton: Think about "I Love Lucy." They have that, that famous scene where she and Ethel
are trying to wrap chocolates. And their job is grab the chocolates, and wrap 'em, then get 'em back
on the conveyor belt. Our criminal justice system has become something of a conveyor belt that starts
with you arrested. And then there's hands that touch you on the way to prison. It is not about figuring
out at any point your innocence. Should you even be on this conveyor belt, no matter what you did?"
"You do your best, but a lot of times you can't provide the kind of representation that the Constitution,
our code of ethics and professional standards would have you provide." Derwyn Bunton
Anderson Cooper: That's a pretty frightening picture you paint. I mean, that's not a justice system.
That's a system sending people to prison.
Derwyn Bunton: And that's what we're fighting to change.
Derwyn Bunton has been head of the New Orleans Public Defenders' office for the last eight years.
The 52 lawyers on his staff are responsible for representing more than 20,000 people a year who are
unable to afford a private attorney.
Anderson Cooper: How do 50 attorneys handle 22,000 cases?
Derwyn Bunton: You do your best, but a lot of times you can't provide the kind of representation
that the Constitution, our code of ethics and professional standards would have you provide.
It was a year ago in January, that Bunton announced his public defenders would no longer take
on any felony cases in which defendants were facing a possible life in prison. That left hundreds
waiting in jail without lawyers.
Anderson Cooper: Isn't having a busy public defender better than languishing in jail without any
kind of attorney?
Derwyn Bunton: No. No. A lawyer poorly resourced can cause irreparable harm to a client.
We sat down with nine current and former New Orleans public defenders who all admit they simply
do not have the time or the budget to adequately represent all their clients.
Anderson Cooper: How many of you believe that an innocent client went to jail because you didn't
have enough time to spend on their case?
Anderson Cooper: All of you. You feel you've all had that experience?
Brandi: We simply don't have the time. We don't have the money. We don't have the attention to
be able to give to every single person.
It's not for lack of skill. Sarah Chervinsky went to Yale and won an award for best young trial
lawyer in the country.
Sarah Chervinsky: A lot of us went to law schools with good criminal defense you know clinics.
We come into this job being told, like, "Here's what you do to investigate. Here's how often you
visit your client." And as soon as you start working you realize the gap between what you should
be doing and what you can do.
Stephen Hanlon: It's unethical, it's unconstitutional. The judges know it, the prosecutors know
it, the bar association knows it and it has to come to an end.
Stephen Hanlon is general counsel for the National Association for Public Defense. He's just concluded
a study in conjunction with the American Bar Association finding Louisiana public defenders are handling
nearly five times as much work as they should.
Anderson Cooper: Each public defender is doing the work of what five public defenders
Stephen Hanlon: That's exactly...
Anderson Cooper: should be doing?
Stephen Hanlon: ...right.
Anderson Cooper: Would any other profession be asked to work this kind of a load?
Stephen Hanlon: If obstetricians had five times as much work as they could handle competently,
if airline pilots had five times as much work as they could handle competently, terrible things would
happen.
Anderson Cooper: It wouldn't be allowed. I'm mean there are strict regulations.
Stephen Hanlon: Of course it wouldn't be allowed.
Anderson Cooper: Public defenders have people's lives in their hands, just like airline pilots
or doctors?
Stephen Hanlon: They have people's lives in their hands, they have people's liberty in their hands.
They have their whole future in their hands.
Donald Gamble, left, and Anderson Cooper
CBS News
Donald Gamble knows what it's like to have your future rest in the hands of a New Orleans public
defender. In February 2015, he was out celebrating Mardi Gras in this neighborhood, when the police
pulled up .
Donald Gamble: The detective he just jumped out and he was like, "Donald Gamble, you're under
arrest, and "
Anderson Cooper: Did they tell you what you were under arrest for?
Donald Gamble: Yeah, he said, "you're under arrest for two counts of armed robbery."
A man with a gun stole two women's purses. The robber was recorded fleeing by security cameras
and a witness identified 26-year-old Donald Gamble. His bail was set at $300,000. Unable to afford
a private attorney, Gamble was assigned a public defender.
Booking photo of 26-year-old Donald Gamble
in 2015.
Anderson Cooper: Did you have confidence in your public defender? Did you ever feel like, "OK,
she's really investigating. They're really on it?"
Donald Gamble: I never once really felt that she was making progress. I could tell, every time
I would interact with her she just seemed busy, rushed. She seemed overworked.
Gamble had some prior nonviolent offenses on his record, but now found himself facing possible
life in prison. Even so, court records show that for more than 10 months his case went nowhere.
Gamble was locked up in a jail that was recently cited by the Department of Justice for its violence
and inhumane conditions.
Anderson Cooper: Did you have problems in jail?
Donald Gamble: Yes.
Anderson Cooper: What happened?
Donald Gamble CBS News
Donald Gamble: As you can see, I've got my front teeth knocked out. And I've had stitches.
Anderson Cooper: So, you got attacked more than once?
Donald Gamble: Absolutely. Yeah.
To protect himself, he says, he got a homemade knife which was confiscated by authorities. Lindsay
Samuel was Gamble's public defender. She told us she couldn't spend much time on his case because
she was already struggling to represent nearly a hundred men facing life in prison. Nearly a year
after Donald Gamble was arrested, Samuel quit her job.
Anderson Cooper: Why'd you leave?
Lindsay Samuel: You know feeling like you're always coming up short. Um, you know, the first 1,000
clients, you feel terrible. The second 1,000 clients, you feel awful. The third 1,000, 3,000 in,
it doesn't feel so bad anymore. One morning I woke up and I just felt like, "I'm not even angry about
this anymore." It's just everyday to me. Everyday my clients are going away for a decade. And I just
move along to the next client.
Pamela Metzger, a constitutional scholar
and Tulane law professor CBS News
Samuel left just as the public defender's office started refusing cases. That meant Donald Gamble,
stuck in jail, had no one representing him. But surprisingly, that turned out to be a good thing.
A judge appointed Pamela Metzger, a constitutional scholar and Tulane law professor, to advise him
– and six other men on their Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel. Metzger argued that if the state
couldn't provide the men with effective representation, they should all be released immediately.
"The cost of not having a good public defender is not just to the defendant. It's to the victims
and it's to all the future victims." Pamela Metzger
Anderson Cooper: Some of these men were charged with very serious crimes.
Pamela Metzger: Rape, murder, armed robbery.
Anderson Cooper: You live in New Orleans you have a family here.
Pamela Metzger: Yep.
Anderson Cooper: Do you want them back on the street?
Pamela Metzger: I want to live in a city where the Constitution matters. And I want to live in
a city where everybody knows that if you get arrested, you're gonna have a lawyer and you're gonna
have a lawyer who represents you properly.
When Metzger investigated Gamble's case,
she examined security camera footage and realized Gamble didn't fit the robber's description. CBS
News
Pamela Metzger's job wasn't to disprove the charges against Donald Gamble, but as soon as she
started looking at the case file she says she realized the eyewitness who identified Gamble was unreliable.
Then she took the time to examine those security camera recordings of the robber. When she studied
them closely, she realized, Gamble didn't fit the description at all.
Pamela Metzger: I noticed the pants and there's a flat, wide cuff to the pant.
Anderson Cooper: Uh-huh.
Pamela Metzger: The pant cuffs are swinging as this person runs.
These are the pants police said Donald Gamble was wearing during the robbery.
Anderson Cooper: These are tight on the bottom?
Pamela Metzger: These are old-school sweatpants that are elasticized bottoms. See right there?
Anderson Cooper: Uh-huh.
Pamela Metzger: That straight line?
Anderson Cooper: Right.
Pamela Metzger: It's impossible for those pants to have made that.
Anderson Cooper: As soon as you saw that you knew?
Pamela Metzger: As soon as I saw that, I knew.
Anderson Cooper: How many hours did it take you to determine they had the wrong guy?
Pamela Metzger: They don't have four to five hours. They don't. They don't have four to five hours.
Days after reviewing the case, Pamela Metzger presented the evidence including the security camera
videos to the judge.
Pamela Metzger: I got a call at home that night from the district attorney saying
we're dropping it. And the paperwork was filed the next day.
Last June, after 16 months in jail, Donald Gamble was freed. He left for Houston immediately to
live with his grandmother.
Donald Gamble: Good to see you. You look so good.
Grandma: You do too baby.
Donald Gamble: You look so good. You looking young, girl.
Back at home there was relief and disbelief.
Donald Gamble: You see I got my teeth got knocked out?
Grandma: That's pathetic.
Donald Gamble: It'll be alright.
Grandma: It's time for you to have some good luck.
Anderson Cooper: To someone watching who says, look, it's unfortunate that some innocent people
end up in jail but no system is perfect and it's the cost of doing business to keep people safe.
Pamela Metzger: We didn't keep people safe. We put Donald Gamble in jail. The wrong man. And let
the actual robber out on the streets for 16 more months. Who knows how many other people he robbed?
The cost of not having a good public defender is not just to the defendant. It's to the victims and
it's to all the future victims.
Gamble, who was arrested again last month for disturbing the peace, had always insisted he was
innocent of the robbery. But told us he was so scared in jail he considered pleading guilty.
Anderson Cooper: You were facing potentially life in prison?
Donald Gamble: Yes.
Anderson Cooper: If your attorney had been able to get a plea bargain, for say, five years. Would
you have taken it?
Donald Gamble: Absolutely. If you ask yourself that same question, would you rather five years
or 99 years.
Anderson Cooper: You would have pled guilty to something you didn't do?
Donald Gamble: Most definitely.
That doesn't surprise Derwyn Bunton, the city's chief public defender. He says their clients know
they don't have the time and money to mount a rigorous defense at trial, so often decide to take
plea deals -- even if they aren't guilty.
Derwyn Bunton: People are pleading guilty to crimes they didn't do.
Anderson Cooper: All the time?
Derwyn Bunton: All the time.
Anderson Cooper: This is not just an isolated thing here and there?
Derwyn Bunton: This is not isolated. This is a system that has grown so large without any counterbalance
that it has produced the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Anderson Cooper: And you're supposed to be that counterbalance?
Derwyn Bunton: That's exactly right.
To illustrate his point, Bunton took us to this warehouse where the public defenders' cases from
the past decade are stored.
Anderson Cooper: About how many cases are there here?
Derwyn Bunton: It's roughly about half a million.
Anderson Cooper: And how many pled guilty?
Derwyn Bunton: You're probably looking at somewhere between 90,95 percent.
Anderson Cooper: Ninety-five percent of these people were guilty?
Derwyn Bunton: Well, they pled guilty.
Anderson Cooper: I think people who haven't been in the system find the notion that somebody would
plead guilty to something in a plea deal that they didn't actually do hard to imagine.
Derwyn Bunton: Say you're, you're picked up for something you didn't do and you're placed in jail.
Jail is a terrible place to be. And you find out, through your public defender that if you plea to
this, maybe it's this lesser thing, maybe it's guilty as charged, you'll get out today. People will
take that plea because they want to get out of jail.
"Here, we have a criminal justice system, stories of innocence throughout and profound. And we
still haven't had the urgency that I think we need to reform it so that we don't destroy lives. Because
make no mistake, we're destroying lives." Derwyn Bunton
But plea deals, Bunton says, often lead to serious consequences when someone has a criminal record.
Derwyn Bunton: Louisiana is a state that has a lot of misdemeanor multiples as we call them. That
means if you get one misdemeanor is the misdemeanor. A second one turns it into a felony.
Anderson Cooper: So if you're arrested on a misdemeanor and then a couple months later it happens
again that becomes a felony?
Derwyn Bunton: That's right. The second time it's a felony. And the penalties increase for each
subsequent time that you're caught.
These public defenders say they see harsh sentences based on prior felonies and misdemeanors all
the time.
Barksdale: I had a client who's doing 20 years for stealing a flat of soda that was worth less
than a $100.
Kenneth: I have a client that was sentenced to 17 years for half an ounce of weed. No crimes of
violence in his past.
In recent months the public defender's office here has gotten some relief. The state of Louisiana
and the city of New Orleans have come up with more money and Derwyn Bunton has hired nine additional
attorneys. But he insists he'll continue to turn away cases until he can ensure every client gets
the defense they deserve.
Derwyn Bunton: Here, we have a criminal justice system, stories of innocence throughout and profound.
And we still haven't had the urgency that I think we need to reform it so that we don't destroy lives.
Because make no mistake, we're destroying lives.
Anderson Cooper: And you don't want to be part of it anymore?
Anderson Cooper, anchor of CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," has contributed to 60 Minutes since
2006. His exceptional reporting on big news events has earned Cooper a reputation as one of television's
pre-eminent newsmen.
I applaud this man for finally highlighting what everyone has always known about public defenders.
While they are a dedicated, professional group of people, the State robs them of the resources and
personnel that they provide to the prosecution side (DA and police investigators). With little or
no resources, facing the "big dog" in town, and with more cases than anyone could possibly handle,
they are relegated to being "plea bargain experts" to get their clients, guilty or not, the least
amount of jail time possible.
My question is, when they refuse to take cases because of lack of resources, what happens to the
defendants? If they request a court appointed attorney and none is available, I don't think they
can even be arraigned without an attorney meaning no bail is ever set. So, do they just sit in jail,
unconvicted, indefinitely?
Here's a graph showing the number of attorneys as a share of the US population:
The increase seems pretty inexorable starting around 1970, doesn't it?
For grins and giggles, here's snide graph on which I will make no comment:
If you're wondering where the lawyers live, a quick google search turned up
this post
which shows attorneys by state. Needless to say, the share of attorneys as a
percentage of the population is greater in the District of Columbia than any of the states,
by far.
Data for ("resident active") attorneys used in these graphs comes are from the
American Bar Association
. The ABA's website seems insistent that anyone referencing
their data should state it is "Reprinted by permission of the American Bar Association. All
rights reserved." I am afraid to argue with them.
America's incoming top cop on finance is literally married to industry
Clayton is already an unusual choice, given that he's slated to be a primary regulator of Wall
Street while a chunk of his family income will continue to come from Goldman Sachs, where
his wife Gretchen works . Although he will have to recuse himself from enforcement cases involving
Goldman, he will not have to sit out of a broad range of other regulatory decisions that affect the
company. This is already notable.
But Public Citizen has stumbled
onto some other oddities about Clayton's personal holdings.
In Clayton's absurdly baroque Form 278 financial disclosure – if you want to feel like your financial
life is meager and uncomplicated, take a look at
this staggeringly long list of income sources for the former Sullivan and Cromwell mainstay –
he lists, under "other assets and income," a series of entries involving a company called WMB Holdings.
WMB Holdings, he explains in a verbose and unhelpful endnote, is a Delaware-based entity that
provides "business, financial, and representational services."
According to Clayton, WMB secures business licenses, files UCC forms, creates special purpose
vehicles (you might remember these
little financial Frankensteins from the Enron story), engages in "compliance support services,"
secures data storage and helps with "anti-counterfeiting services," among other things.
This sounds harmless enough. But WMB, and a company called CSC – with which it appears to have
a connection – is a company of a very particular type, known well to white-collar investigators.
"It's a corporate formation company," says
Jack Blum
, an expert on white-collar crime and money laundering who is best known for his investigation
of the BCCI scandal. "You call them up, and 20 minutes later you've got a Delaware corporation. I'm
exaggerating, of course, but that's what they do."
These firms can be used to create chains of legal entities, sometimes ending in offshore accounts,
that make tracing financial transactions difficult, if not impossible. "They can make the ownership
of anything completely impenetrable," says Blum, speaking generally and not necessarily about Clayton's
firm. "If you want to launder money, evade tax or hide assets from a spouse, you can do it."
Clayton's family seems to have a serious interest in this firm. He lists a series of family trusts
containing WMB holdings, most producing high annual dividends.
If you add up each of the dividends – some of which are listed as generating over $1 million a
year, while others are listed at $100,000-$1,000,000, etc. – the total annual value of these holdings
comes out to over $4 million annually, at least.
The endnote claims Clayton has no beneficial interest or control in these holdings, but that his
wife and/or children have a "beneficial interest."
Given that the company would appear to be subject to SEC oversight, it's worth asking the nature
of his family's involvement with WMB, and moreover to learn more about what his attitude is toward
such companies in general.
Clayton has pledged to divest from WMB when his wife has "directly held financial interests" in
the company, but not where his wife or his children are "solely a beneficiary."
Public Citizen for a variety of reasons believes that WMB "may also be the parent of Corporation
Service Co. (CSC)," another large business services firm with offices in "Delaware, Australia, France,
Hong Kong, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom."
Among other things, WMB was for some time listed as the
parent of
a company called CSC Trust Co., now called Delaware Trust Co.
CSC Global claims 2,500
employees as well as 180,000 corporate customers, while also representing 10,000 law firms. The company
appears to do more or less the same things that Clayton says WMB does, dealing with creating legal
business entities, management of licenses, upkeep of filings, dealing with service of process, etc.
Interestingly, and to Blum's point, Clayton's disclosure does not list any interest in CSC. So
although he gives some information about what appears to be a holding company with little to no public
profile, the company that boasts of its connections to 180,000 corporations is not mentioned in the
disclosure form.
Neither CSC nor Clayton have responded to requests for comment.
The real issue with companies like these is the vast array of tools they can offer big companies
and high-net-worth individuals to complicate their financial profiles. The worst-case scenario is
a string of shell companies that end in an opaque offshore haven.
"That's when the trail becomes impossible to follow," says Blum. Investigators who try to follow
money into offshore banking havens have almost no hope of getting answers there, he says.
"You need a formal mutual legal request that may or may not be honored in the lifetime of the
investigator," says Blum.
Interestingly, when Public Citizen ran the names of WMB and CSC through the Panama Papers
database, they found nothing. But when they ran the address common to both companies – 2711 Centerville
Rd., Wilmington – through the database, they found it
connected with numerous firms whose agent was the infamous Mossack Fonseca, many of them offshore
companies.
In its letter to the Senate Banking Committee, Public Citizen asked the Senate to ask Clayton
what this means. Did either WMB or CSC do business with Mossack Fonseca? Have either of those companies
provided services to Mossack Fonseca clients?
Even if WMB and CSC are completely above-board, it's a strange sort of investment for the top
cop on the financial beat. It will be interesting to see if he sheds some light on his holdings when
he's questioned this week.
"... Hayes contends that the country has been divided into two halves that he labels the Colony and the Nation. The idea is adapted from Richard Nixon's 1968 speech at the Republican National Convention, in which he asserted that black Americans "don't want to be a colony in a nation." Hayes argues that almost a half-century later we have created just that: ..."
"... ...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity. ..."
"... The benefits for the Nation were manifest and the practices were almost immediately exported to cities all over the country. Cleaned-up cities came at a cost, though, vacuuming huge numbers of poor, mentally ill and minority-status Americans into prisons and inflicting "widespread harassment and misery" on residents of the Colony. ..."
Chris Hayes, author of Twilight of the Elites and host of MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes , seeks to establish a
new framework for understanding America's fractured society with his book A Colony in a Nation .
Hayes contends that the country has been divided into two halves that he labels the Colony and the Nation. The idea is adapted
from Richard Nixon's 1968 speech at the Republican National Convention, in which he asserted that black Americans "don't want to
be a colony in a nation." Hayes argues that almost a half-century later we have created just that:
...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former
colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms
of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool
of control rather than a foundation for prosperity.
... ... ...
Hayes aims to show not just that the law is unequally applied, but that the Nation and the Colony have two entirely different
justice systems. He points to colleges and universities as a key example: "All these schools and hundreds of others draw their student
bodies disproportionately from upper echelons of society, and they are places where parents and administrators outright expect students
to engage in illicit behaviors." Why aren't poorer neighborhoods extended the same "extremely liberal norms of tolerance"? In fact,
under the widely celebrated "Broken Windows" theory of policing in the 1990s, New York "constructed an entire new judicial system
around low-level offenses" where the goal was "not to figure out if the person in question committed a crime but to sort city
residents according to their obedience and orderliness."
The benefits for the Nation were manifest and the practices were almost immediately exported to cities all over the country.
Cleaned-up cities came at a cost, though, vacuuming huge numbers of poor, mentally ill and minority-status Americans into prisons
and inflicting "widespread harassment and misery" on residents of the Colony.
Hayes does not propose solutions in A Colony in a Nation . Instead, he makes a powerful dichotomy visible to those who
can't see it. His framework serves as a powerful lens through which to understand the last half-century of American history, as well
as the immense challenges going forward. -- Hank Stephenson
Here's a graph showing the number of attorneys as a share of the US population:
The increase seems pretty inexorable starting around 1970, doesn't it?
For grins and giggles, here's snide graph on which I will make no comment:
If you're wondering where the lawyers live, a quick google search turned up
this post
which shows attorneys by state. Needless to say, the share of attorneys as a
percentage of the population is greater in the District of Columbia than any of the states,
by far.
Data for ("resident active") attorneys used in these graphs comes are from the
American Bar Association
. The ABA's website seems insistent that anyone referencing
their data should state it is "Reprinted by permission of the American Bar Association. All
rights reserved." I am afraid to argue with them.
Great charts, and the first attempt I've seen to actually
quantify the effect.
I see one big problem: incarceration really exploded
between 1980 and 2000, and yet that is exactly when the
secular decline in the LFPR, relatively speaking, abated.
Barack Obama was the first president to
denounce mass incarceration
and the first
ever to visit a federal prison while in office. He is the first president to truly understand,
on a policy, intellectual, and moral level, what has gone wrong.
Obama has commuted the sentences of more federal prisoners than his eleven predecessors combined
and allowed state-level experiments in recreational marijuana legalization to move forward even though
it has remained illegal under federal law - something his administration could have signaled that
it wanted to fix, but hasn't, by rescheduling the drug.
There have been serious strides toward criminal justice reform under Obama, including at the Justice
Department, which has aggressively moved to curb abusive charging practices in the courts and, through
its Civil Rights Division, investigated, taken legal actions against, and foisted reforms upon abusive
local police departments, courts, prisons, jails, officers, and guards.
But the United States
still locks up its people at a rate far higher than most any nation on earth, and mass incarceration
remains a humanitarian monstrosity. By that sobering measure, Obama has fallen short.
Though states, and not the federal government, incarcerate the vast majority of prisoners nationwide,
Obama could have done much more to alleviate this problem than he has. In a recent Harvard Law
Review article, Obama defended his criminal justice record and noted that on this and other
matters, "better is good." That's true, especially given a Republican Congress that is unremittingly
hostile to most all that is decent.
But it also rings hollow: on criminal justice reform, it's not just about the perfect being made
the enemy of the good, but rather that President Obama has refused to embrace transformational change.
Instead, Obama has framed his commutations as a "second chance" rather than righting a major injustice.
As a result, he has so far refused calls to issue more sweeping, across-the-board commutations that
would decrease the federal prison population by larger numbers - meaning that Obama, in an area where
he has extraordinary unilateral authority to act, has addressed what he clearly understands to be
a systematic problem on an individual, case-by-case basis.
Meanwhile, US attorneys under his watch have continued to preside over a federal prosecutorial
machinery that metes out draconian sentences for mostly nonviolent crimes. That includes a new push
to charge drug dealers with crimes that can carry life sentences in overdose cases and a relentless
campaign to charge immigrants with federal crimes merely for having crossed, or re-crossed, the border.
Crackdowns on adult sex workers and their customers, misleadingly lauded as strikes against child
sex trafficking, continue. Despite encouraging reforms, federal prisons remain plagued by inhumane
conditions, including forms of solitary confinement that amount to torture.
Under Obama, immigration enforcement became inextricably linked to the criminal justice system.
A program called Secure Communities, renamed the Priority Enforcement Program, systematically transformed
local jails and police into immigration agents. Under Obama, civil detention centers
have
admitted hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year for committing mere civil violations.
Federal convictions for illegally reentering the country, a felony, have skyrocketed and people charged
with immigration-related crimes now make up
nearly
9 percent of the federal prison population.
Obama's criminal justice record is a mixed bag. Under President Trump and Attorney General Jeff
Sessions, it will likely be a basket of deplorables. The recent history of tepid liberal reform and
right-wing reaction, however, both expose the country's leading political blocs as unwilling and
perhaps unable to end mass incarceration. To do that, we need a new movement that can force the transformation
of American punishment and the brutally unequal socioeconomic system that it protects.
"... Police and prosecutors appear to be using their considerable discretion to maintain their felony caseloads in the face of falling crime rates and mounting pressure to end the war on drugs. ..."
"... Rising prison admissions for violent, property, and public order offenses have offset the drop in prison admissions for drug crimes ..."
"... While the US incarceration rate of 400 per 100,000 for whites is low relative to the rates for African Americans (2,300 per 100,000) and Hispanics (1,000 per 100,000), it's extraordinarily high compared to those of other industrialized democracies. ..."
Police and prosecutors appear to be using their considerable discretion to maintain their felony
caseloads in the face of falling crime rates and mounting pressure to end the war on drugs.
Rising prison admissions for violent, property, and public order offenses have offset the
drop in prison admissions for drug crimes .
For all the talk about parole reform, huge numbers of people continue to be returned to prison
for technical parole violations. Remove California from the numbers, and the rate of parole-related
prison admissions actually increased significantly between 2000 and 2012.
The polarization in Congress and many state legislatures has been a convenient excuse to explain
why so little progress has been made in slashing the country's incarceration rate and ameliorating
the collateral consequences of the carceral state. It has been used to justify saddling up to Right
on Crime and pursuing small-bore solutions like the 3 R's.
Claims of legislative gridlock direct attention away from many non-legislative means available
to begin razing the carceral state. The carceral state was not built by punitive legislation alone.
It also required, particularly in its formative years, a shift in sensibilities as police officers,
parole and probation agents, corrections officials, judges, and prosecutors began to wield their
discretion in a more punitive direction.
... ... ...
The late legal scholar William Stuntz once characterized prosecutors as the "real lawmakers" of
the criminal justice system because the penal code grants them enormous leeway in charging decisions.
As the violent crime rate plummeted in the 1990s, changes in prosecutorial behavior helped drive
the continued escalation of the prison population. The number of violent and property offenses prosecuted
rose, as did the time served by people convicted of violent offenses.
... ... ...
Prison-based groups and organizations of formerly incarcerated people have been coalescing to
fight the carceral state despite the enormous obstacles to political action they face. It remains
an open question, however, whether this upsurge will develop into a broader movement to challenge
not only the carceral state but also other growing inequities in the US.
... ... ...
While the US incarceration rate of 400 per 100,000 for whites is low relative to the rates for
African Americans (2,300 per 100,000) and Hispanics (1,000 per 100,000), it's extraordinarily high
compared to those of other industrialized democracies. The United States is incarcerating whites
at about two-and-a-half to seven times the rates of other advanced capitalist countries.
Framing the movement to dismantle the carceral state as primarily a case of racial disparities
renders invisible how the deep penetration of neoliberalism into the social, economic, and political
fabric of the United States is fostering wide-scale economic and political inequalities and eroding
democratic institutions. It also thwarts the development of a broader political and social movement
to challenge the underlying forces that sustain the carceral state and other gross injustices and
inequalities in the US today.
This makes a cute story, but I seriously doubt its accuracy. I did three
years in Federal prison (1999-2002) and I recall that commissary purchases were
regulated quite strictly. It would have been nearly impossible to buy up all
of the hot chocolate mix, or anything else for that matter. Further, there were
restrictions on the types and amounts of items that were permitted be kept in
an inmate's cell or cube. It would have been impractical to purchase and store
up a large quantity of an item, and attempting to corner a market in a popular
product and exploit the consumers could very well prove – ahem – hazardous to
one's well-being. The FCI commissary order list confirms my recollection. Inmate
purchases of drink mixes are limited to 1 each:
your comment interesting, esp. in light of reports in the past decade
that canned mackerel had replaced cigarettes as barter currency within federal
prisons: see, f. ex:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122290720439096481
.
How then are / were
quantities accumulated if the limits on canned fish is 5 cans per inmate.
Ditto cigs back in the day when smokes were allowed?
Madoff made off with all the cash with the help of a not so little
firm named fiserv, which seemed to be the go to firm for corporate criminals
as its software was "malleable" maybe his old friends at fiserv handle
the BOP accounting system and magically the magic is back ??
Nearly one in 10 prisoners suffer sexual abuse while incarcerated in state prisons, local jails and post-release treatment
facilities, according to a report published Thursday by the U.S. Department of Justice.
The report, based on the first
National Former Prisoners
Survey , includes data from 518,800 former prisoners who were on supervised parole in mid-2008.
An estimated 3.7 percent said they were forced or pressured to have nonconsensual sex with another inmate. About 5.3 percent
reported an incident that involved facility staff.
The report's publication coincides with the Justice Department's release of landmark federal standards to protect inmates in
all federal, state and local facilities, under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003.
"For too long, incidents of sexual abuse against incarcerated persons have not been taken as seriously as sexual abuse outside
prison walls," the Justice Department said in a statement on the standards. "In popular culture, prison rape is often the subject
of jokes; in public discourse, it has been at times dismissed by some as an inevitable - or even deserved - consequence of criminality."
A quarter of those who reported they had suffered unwanted sexual contact at the hands of other inmates said they had been
physically held down or restrained and a quarter had been physically harmed or injured. Nearly a quarter (23 percent) reported
serious injuries, including anal/vaginal tearing (12 percent), chipped or lost teeth (12 percent), being knocked unconscious (8
percent), internal injuries (6 percent), knife/stab wounds (4 percent) or broken bones (4 percent), according to the survey of
former prisoners.
Although any sexual contact between staff and inmates is legally nonconsensual, former prisoners said some incidents were unwilling
and some were "willing." Most victims of staff sexual misconduct reported some type of coercion. Half said they had been offered
favors or special privileges and a third said they had been talked into it. Nearly 7 in 8 in this category reported only perpetrators
of the opposite sex. More than three-quarters of all reported staff sexual misconduct involved a male inmate with female staff.
The rate of victimization by other inmates was reported by homosexual (39 percent) and bisexual male inmates (34 percent) at
rates about 10 times higher than those reported by heterosexual males (3.5 percent).
In other findings, the report said inmates of two or more races (11.3 percent) and black non-Hispanics (6.5 percent) suffered
sexual victimization at rates higher than white non-Hispanic inmates (4.5 percent) and Hispanic inmates (4 percent).
The survey was part of the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which has collected administrative
records of reported sexual violence or allegations of sexual victimization directly from victims since 2004.
The new standards require an array of measures to prevent and handle sexual abuse involving prisoners, including additional
staff training, grievance reporting systems, increased staff and video monitoring, prompt medical and psychological attention
for victims, and disciplinary actions for staff or inmate perpetrators.
"The standards we establish today reflect the fact that sexual assault crimes committed within our correctional facilities
can have devastating consequences - for individual victims and for communities far beyond our jails and prisons," Attorney General
Eric Holder said in a statement.
The standards will go into effect for federal facilities in 60 days. States that do not comply or demonstrate that they are
working toward complying with the standards face the loss of relevant federal funds.
In drafting the standards, the Justice Department was prohibited from placing an undue financial burden on the states. It collected
public comment, and haggled with officials from states, a wide array of advocacy groups and other stakeholders, a department official
said, explaining why the standards were instituted nine years after the law was passed.
"These standards are the result of a thoughtful and deliberative process - and represent a critical step forward in protecting
the rights and safety of all Americans," Holder said.
For the nearly 8,000 people locked up in Cook County jail, and the 2,400 on house arrest, the presumption of innocence until proven
guilty effectively does not exist. Roughly 95 percent of those incarcerated have not faced trial or conviction of any kind, the
vast majority of them ensnared simply because they are unable to afford bond. Those forced to languish in indefinite detention
are disproportionately African American, and their pretrial punishments can permanently set their lives off-course, causing them
to lose jobs, custody of their children, their housing, and even their lives.
Now, a group of formerly incarcerated people, movement lawyers and concerned community members in Chicago are seeking to intervene
in this humanitarian crisis by pooling collective resources
to free people from Cook County jail. Calling themselves the Chicago
Community Bond Fund (CCBF), the all-volunteer group just announced it has freed 50 people from jail or house arrest, using a revolving
fund.
But the organization is not just aiming to buy the liberty of those locked up -- a transaction they
acknowledge is chilling. Members want to change the system by organizing to eradicate monetary bond altogether and address
the harms that Cook County inflicts on its own residents. "You are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but they treat
everyone guilty until proven innocent," Tyler Smith, a 21-year-old Chicago resident bonded out by the CCBF in February, told AlterNet.
Amid mounting nationwide concern about mass incarceration, the CCBF is advancing a strategy of harm reduction and resistance
that appears to be catching fire, with related projects established in
Massachusetts , New York ,
California ,
North Carolina and beyond. In a country that remains,
by far , the biggest jailer in the world, organizers hope that
similar bond funds can comprise one prong in a broad strategy to end the injustices perpetrated by prison and jail systems across
the United States.
"If we are really serious about the presumption of innocence, which is not a radical concept, then we need to take a critical
look at cash bond and pretrial detention across the board," Max Suchan, a co-founder of CCBF, told AlterNet. "The solution is
to end cash bond and eliminate pretrial detention."
"My Life Was Ruined"
While the monetary bond system remains, Smith said he is glad the CCBF exists. "It had a good impact," he said of the organization.
"It brought me hope."
Smith has been working since he was 15, and said he comes from a "single-parent household, with a mother who has been working
hard since I was born." He described himself as "head of household" since he was 19.
"My whole situation started on July 15, 2013, when I was accused of robbery," said Smith. Unable to pay $2,500 -- 10 percent
of his $25,000 deposit bond -- he was forcibly subjected to electronic monitoring, a form of house arrest, in July 2016. Smith
was working two jobs at the time, but lost both as a result of restrictions on his movement and invasive surveillance. He was
living with his mother, who was unemployed, and says as a result of his incarceration the family was almost evicted from their
home. "My life was ruined," said Smith. "There was nothing I could do."
After being referred by his public defender, Smith was bonded out by the CCBF in February and has since become a vocal organizer
against the injustices he endured, testifying at a
November public hearing on the use of money bond in Cook County. He said that through the CCBF, he has gained important community
he describes as "friends and family." He added that "after the situation, it's like the stress has been lifted from my mom."
Yet Smith also said that his life has been unfairly derailed by what he has suffered so far. While his charges were dropped
last Friday, Smith and his family have already faced staggering punishment, he notes. In light of this ordeal, he emphasized that
it is important for those who have not experienced incarceration firsthand to "hear my voice and what I have to say."
"To make things better in the justice system, they have to eliminate bond and house arrest," said Smith.
For many, the harms inflicted during pretrial detention are irreversible. "Inability to pay bond results in higher rates of
conviction, longer sentences, loss of housing and jobs, separation of families and lost custody of children," notes the CCBF in
its first annual report
.
It is far more difficult for individuals to fight their cases while incarcerated, and after sitting in indefinite detention,
many experience pressure to plead guilty. In Cook County alone, people arrested on "nonviolent" felonies who were unable to post
bail were four times as likely to receive convictions as their counterparts who were able to avoid pretrial detention, according
to research included in a class
action lawsuit.
Especially for those who already experience poverty or marginalization, even just a few days in jail can permanently disrupt
jobs and family connections, a reality underscored by the Pretrial Justice Institute's "
Three Days Count " campaign.
Diomar, who was formerly incarcerated in Cook County jail, says it was only because he was bonded out by CCBF that he was able
to "be free to see the birth of my daughter and support my family."
"Bond is fundamentally unfair because it punishes poor people more -- and it's not just you that suffers, but also your entire
family," he said in a press statement. "They lock you away from your kids, and that really sets the tone for the case and puts
you at a disadvantage from the very beginning. You can't fight your case as well from a legal or emotional standpoint from the
inside."
Some do not survive their ordeals. According to a
report by the Huffington Post, 815 people "died in jails and police lockups in the year following Sandra Bland's death on
July 13, 2015." Their data shows that many of those who lost their lives were incarcerated because they were unable to meet bond
requirements. The tally is a dramatic undercount, as it does not include people who die following release due to incarcerated-related
causes.
The long-term impacts of jailing are tragically illustrated by the case of Kalief Browder, who in 2010 was arrested at the
age of 16 and spent more than 1,000 days locked up at Rikers Island waiting for a trial that never happened. He was forced to
remain incarcerated because his family could not afford to post bail. During this time he endured roughly two years in solitary
confinement, as well as a
violent assault by
an officer. Following his release, Browder
committed suicide in 2015.
"He tried to lead a normal life but after being beaten, starved, being in solitary confinement for so long, that would take
a toll on a grown man, let alone a child," Venida Browder, Kalief's mother,
told the
New York Daily News six months after her son's death. She died just over a year after her son took his life.
"No More Business-as-Usual"
Pretrial detention, like that which Browder was forced to endure, is a key driver of soaring jail populations across the United
States. According to a
report released in February 2015 by the Vera Institute, annual admissions to jails jumped from 6 million in 1983 to 11.7 million
in 2013. Meanwhile, those incarcerated in jails are languishing longer, with the average stay climbing from 14 to 23 days over
the past 30 years. People of color are disproportionately impacted by these trends. The Vera Institute finds that African Americans,
who make up just 13 percent of the US population, are jailed at four times the rate of their white counterparts.
As in Cook County, the vast majority of people locked up in jails across the country have not been convicted of any crime and
are ostensibly assumed innocent. The Department of Justice
estimated in 2014 that, at any given time, roughly
450,000 people are incarcerated in jails awaiting trial, amounting to two-thirds of the jail population. A
special report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
released in 2007, shows that five out of six of those locked up "had bail set with financial conditions required for release that
were not met." According to the Vera report, three-fifths of all people locked up in jail are "awaiting trial or resolution of
their cases through through plea negotiation, and simply too poor to post even low bail."
The spike in jail populations nationwide tracks directly with increased reliance on ever-more-expensive bail. In a 2012
report
, the Justice Policy Institute notes that, "From 1992 to 2006, the use of financial release, primarily through commercial
bonds, increased by 32 percent." Meanwhile, the report observes that average bail amounts have increased "by over $30,000 between
1992 and 2006."
Bail itself reflects the racism of the broader prison-industrial complex.
According to figures released by the Pretrial Justice Institute last year, African American men face 35 percent higher bonds
than white men nationwide. Meanwhile, monetary bail systems by definition discriminate against those members of society who are
least able to pay, in a society with profound class disparities along race lines. The Pew Research Center
determined in
2014 that the current wealth gap between white and black people in the United States is at its highest point since 1989, with
white homes possessing 13 times the median wealth of their black counterparts in 2013.
Even the Department of Justice submitted a friend-of-the-court
brief in August arguing that incarcerating people
because they are unable to pay bail violates the US constitution. Yet despite the public airing of concerns, the system continues
unabated, with rare exceptions. In
contrast to most state and local jurisdictions in the United States, Washington DC releases roughly 90 percent of people held
overnight, without requiring monetary bail.
Peter Goldberg, executive director of the Brooklyn Bail Fund, told AlterNet over the phone, "The goal of a bond fund is certainly
not to prop up an unfair system with money, but to disrupt and change it. In addition to the obvious harm reduction that a fund
can provide by getting people out of jail, we work in tandem with others in the movement to abolish cash bail. Funds must bring
to light the experiences of individuals, allow them to have voice in what reform looks like. No more business-as-usual."
"There Hasn't Been a Change"
In light of these injustices, Chicago-area activists and lawyers are organizing a coordinated fightback. Currently and formerly
incarcerated people filed a class-action lawsuit against Cook County officials in October, in partnership with the CCBF and lawyers'
groups, including the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center.
"Every day, thousands of human beings in Cook County, each presumed innocent as a matter of law, remain in jail for the duration
of their case simply because they cannot afford to pay a monetary amount set without relation to their ability to pay," states
the complaint, which was emailed to AlterNet. "The large and disproportionate majority of these persons are African Americans."
According to 2011-2013 data from the Clerk of the Circuit Court of County, analyzed by the MacArthur Justice Center, these
disparities are stark. For example, only 15.8 percent of African Americans charged with Class 4 felonies were released on bond
before their trials, as compared to 32.4% of non-African American defendants.
Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart, who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, has stated publicly he believes the money bail
system is unfair. Cara Smith, chief policy officer for Dart, told AlterNet that the sheriff "has been lobbying to eliminate cash
bond in Illinois."
But campaigners say they are exasperated by the endless talk about the problems while the policies remain the same. "The reason
Sheriff Dart is named in the lawsuit is because his office is incarcerating these people after the bond is set," Alexa Van Brunt
of MacArthur Justice Center told AlterNet. "He is the custodian of the people who are being held based on these judicial bail
orders, which we believe are unconstitutional. There has been a lot of discussion about the problem of cash bail in Cook County.
It's an issue that has been on everyone's radar for some time. But there hasn't been a change."
Building a Movement
While the monetary system persists, people across the country are taking direct action to remove people from its clutches.
"We're first and foremost interested in keeping clients out of jail," Brett Davidson, the director of the Connecticut Bail Fund,
told AlterNet over the phone. "It's ridiculous that we're even able to buy people's freedom, that money is the thing standing
between people and jail."
The CCBF, which combines harm reduction with social movement support, emerged from a call to address grave injustices committed
by the Chicago Police Department. In August 2014, police killed two black men, one of whom was 17-year-old Desean Pittman. When
Pittman's friends and family held a community vigil shortly following the killing, they were attacked by police who "ripped down
memorial photos and tipped over candles," said Suchan. After the incident was over, five people were charged with felonies, including
Pittman's mother, and four could not afford bond.
Just back from Ferguson, Suchan says he "made contact with family members who were doing their own fundraising. Ultimately
we had to raise around $30,000 to get everyone out of jail. It took four months. We were doing fish fries and game nights, as
well as crowdfunding online campaigns." That effort launched conversations about what it would look like to create a more sustainable
fund.
"We decided to form this group so that we could reach out to those who couldn't help themselves, and we are very proud of what
we're doing," co-founder Jeanette Wince
said at a launch party in November 2015. Since the launch, the organization says it has posted "over $278,000 in bonds ranging
from $500 to $50,000, spending the vast majority of this sum on felony bonds." Not a single bond has been forfeited, and many
of those released have since become active with the organization.
To this day, CCBF martials resources to support individuals, as well as the Black Lives Matter movement, with roughly a quarter
of the people bonded out engaged in a political action at the time of their arrest. Support of people doing activist work "directly
advances our mission of supporting movements seeking systemic change in Chicago," the group says in their annual
report . "Bond
funds are a really important, humanizing tool, but they are really only a way forward if they are connected and accountable to
larger movements for justice and decarceration," Sharlyn Grace, CCBF co-founder, told AlterNet.
James Kilgore, author of the book
Understanding Mass Incarceration , told AlterNet that bail funds "raise the issue of the injustice of bail and put
the issue of abolishing cash bail onto the agenda. That is an important step in decarceration."
However, individuals don't have to have ties to such social movements to be deemed worthy of support. The CCBF has
developed detailed criteria that weighs factors including "inability
to pay," "risk of victimization in jail" and "special health needs."
"Many times, when there are public conversations about bail reform, they move forward by dividing people into categories of
worthy and unworthy," Grace emphasized. "We're not a guilt or innocence-based organization. We think of everyone as being harmed
in the jail. We are not going to say we are only bailing out people who face 'nonviolent' charges or drug charges. Fundamentally,
keeping people in cages is not how we want to respond to harm in our communities." This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission
or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
"... Interestingly, white collar cases (like fraud, embezzlement and corruption) usually do not result in as steep a sentence as one might get if prosecuted for the same offense in state court. ..."
"... For the most part, however, the mandatory minimum penalties and federal sentencing guidelines usually result in very lengthy sentences for people convicted of federal crimes. That's one of the main reasons it is so important to retain a lawyer with a record of success in federal court if the case is being prosecuted by the federal government. ..."
"... In order to have jurisdiction over a crime, the alleged criminal activity must somehow involve the federal government or some instrumentality of interstate commerce. ..."
Are federal criminal cases different than state criminal cases? Yes!
Federal criminal investigations and prosecutions are handled very differently than similar
criminal cases in state courts. First of all, the law enforcement agencies that investigate
federal crimes are generally well-funded and staffed by the most experienced agents and investigators.
The federal prosecutors who conduct federal criminal trials and sentencing hearings are also usually
very experienced, and have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal. The judges who
preside in federal courts have lifetime appointments and their dockets are generally not as crowded
as those of most state court judges who handle many different types of criminal offenses.
More importantly, federal crimes generally carry stiffer sentences than state crimes, especially
in the areas of drug trafficking and conspiracy. Federal criminal penalties are also more
severe in cases involving child pornography and other sexual offenses prosecuted in federal court.
Interestingly, white collar cases (like fraud, embezzlement and corruption) usually do
not result in as steep a sentence as one might get if prosecuted for the same offense in state
court.
For the most part, however, the mandatory minimum penalties and federal sentencing guidelines
usually result in very lengthy sentences for people convicted of federal crimes. That's one of
the main reasons it is so important to retain a lawyer with a record of success in federal court
if the case is being prosecuted by the federal government.
Of course, not all crimes can be prosecuted in federal court. The federal government has limited
jurisdiction over criminal offenses and can only prosecute those crimes that are specifically
defined in the federal criminal code. In order to have jurisdiction over a crime, the
alleged criminal activity must somehow involve the federal government or some instrumentality
of interstate commerce. Federal courts have generally been very expansive in their
definition of what constitutes interstate commerce. As a result, the federal government
now prosecutes many crimes that were traditionally prosecuted only in state court. And this
trend is likely to continue.
Given the severity and complexity of federal criminal investigations and prosecutions, anyone
charged with a federal crime should retain a lawyer who has extensive experience in federal criminal
defense. If you need a federal criminal defense attorney with decades of successful results,
contact our firm and discuss your case with Page Pate in complete confidence. You will not
find a law firm with more recent successful results, better credentials, or a deeper commitment
to pursuing justice for people who need help in federal court.
"... The National Registry of Exoneration, a project of the University of Michigan, lists 18 wrongful convictions of mail fraud in the last 23 years-and this is only of the cases they've been able to examine. ..."
"... Of the 18 wrongfully convicted persons, nine were exonerated in the last five years, having already served between three to five years of their sentences. Factors contributing to the wrongful convictions ranged from perjury, misleading forensic evidence, official misconduct and most importantly, lack of adequate legal services. ..."
Mail fraud refers to the use of the U.S. Postal Service or other mail carrier to commit a crime.
Because of the proliferation of electronic communications, mail fraud has been expanded to include
wire fraud-which is the use of wire communications (such as email) to commit crimes.
According to The Wall Street Journal , in 2013 there were 3,923 cases of wire fraud.
For one to be convicted of mail or wire fraud, the court must establish that there is intent on the
part of the accused to defraud a person or institution as part of a scheme that uses mail and wire
communication. Convictions can also be made on the basis of intent alone. When found guilty, a defendant
may face as long as 30 years in prison and $1 million in fines.
REPORTS ON EXONERATION The National Registry of Exoneration, a project of the University of Michigan, lists 18 wrongful
convictions of mail fraud in the last 23 years-and this is only of the cases they've been able to
examine.
Of the 18 wrongfully convicted persons, nine were exonerated in the last five years, having
already served between three to five years of their sentences. Factors contributing to the wrongful
convictions ranged from perjury, misleading forensic evidence, official misconduct and most importantly,
lack of adequate legal services.
Last year, two people were exonerated. One of them was forty-year-old Leean Shantelle Thain from
Berrien County, Michigan. Thain was accused of embezzling funds from her mother by diverting her
mail. The National Registry of Exoneration lists inadequate legal services as a major factor contributing
to her wrongful conviction. A court of appeal ruled that both the trial lawyer and defense lawyer
erred by not conducting proper investigations into the matter, a factor that would have been avoided
had the accused had good legal representation.
Lawyer Referral For Mail Fraud Lawsuits
If you've been accused of mail or wire fraud, don't take chances on your legal representation.
Work with Pravati Networks and you'll be matched to a
mail fraud lawyer who
has in-depth experience working with other cases just like yours. Our mail fraud lawyers can help
you avoid wrongful conviction and overly harsh sentences. With just a small retainer, you can get
started with your defense today.
To be convicted of mail fraud, one must do all of the following:
Purposefully create a plan to defraud an individual or institution
Display intent to commit fraud
Mail something-for the purpose of carrying out a fraudulent
scheme-through the USPS or a private carrier
Previous Mail Fraud Cases
Case #1
According to the USPS, prosecutors proved in 2002 that a Texas man sold
roughly $6.5 million in fraudulent certificates of deposit (CDs) via the U.S.
Mail to close to 80 investors - most of whom were senior citizens. The man, who
never purchased the CDs, used portions of the money to pay earlier investors
and used the rest for personal expenses. More than 45 investors are still owed
a total of $3.5 million.
Case #2
The USPS states that two employees of the company that publishes Business
Week were charged with conspiracy to commit
securities fraud
when they revealed confidential information about publicly
held companies. The pair allegedly stockpiled thousands of dollars in
kickbacks
(through the U.S. Mail) after giving two co-defendants
insider trading
information from an issue of Business Week the day before
the issue hit newsstands. Armed with their tips, the co-defendants bought
various company stocks on a reported 43 occasions and sold it when the magazine
was released-after which stock prices soared. The trades were valued at more
than $2 million, while profits totaled $450,000.
Case #3
An Arizona man was convicted of mail fraud and sentenced to five years of
supervised probation, nine months of home detention, and $1 million in victim
restitution after executing the age-old envelope-stuffing scam. The man ran ads
in national magazines, promising to send stuffing materials to everyone who
mailed money for supply costs ($18 to $36) to his fictitious company. He mailed
instructions on how to run an envelope-stuffing business but no actual
materials.
Possible Punishments for Mail Fraud Crimes
Mail fraud, a felony, carries a sentence of up to five years in prison
and/or fines of up to $250,000 when individuals are involved and up to 30 years
in prison and/or $1,000,000 in fines when a financial institution is involved.
Just as the court exercises a large amount of discretion in determining whether the elements of
the mail and
wire fraud
statutes have been satisfied, they are afforded substantial leeway in the area of sentencing.
The mail, wire, and
honest services fraud statutes are powerful prosecutorial weapons that have undoubtedly been
used against unsuspecting individuals who never knew such prohibitions existed. Likewise, some
of the most notorious criminals in American History have been convicted of mail and wire fraud.
Sentences for mail and wire fraud convictions can
vary greatly based on the conduct of the Defendant convicted, the jurisdiction in which the
Defendant was convicted, and the creativity of the criminal attorney representing the Defendant.
Continued reading about mail and wire fraud sentencing:
What Is Mail Fraud?
Sweepstakes and 'Free' Prizes
'Free' Vacatons
Government Look-Alike Mail
Solicitations Disguised as Invoices
Foreign Lotteries
Cham Lottors
Charity Fraud
Insurance Fraud
Medcal Fraud
internet Fraud
Phony Inheritance Sc homos
Home Improvement and Home Repair Fraud
Investment Fraud
Fees Charged for Normally Free Services
Advance-Fee Loans
Credit Rcpar and Credit Card Schemes
Work-at-Home Offers
Distributorshp and Franchise Fraud
Phony Job Opportunities
Unsolicited Merchandise
Rcshippmg Fraud
Fake Chock Scams
How to Contact the Postal Inspection Service
Advance-Fee Loans
Have you had difficulty obtaining a personal or business loan through normal sources? If so,
you may become the target of
an advance-fee loan scheme, where a con artist offers you a "guaranteed' loan for a foo paid n
advance.
The swindler dams to be able to obtain a loan for you with ease from a legitimate lending
institution, such as a savings and loan association. However, the swindler has no ability to
secure a loan for you. Instead, the swindler steals your fee and either disappears or remains n
the area to lureother unsuspecting victims while stalling you with excuses as to why your loan
has not been funded.
With Hillary Clinton
's White House run on the horizon, RadarOnline.com
has learned that
the skeletons
in her husband,
Bill 's closet
are the least of her worries. Daughter
Chelsea 's
father-in-law, convicted felon Ed Mezvinsky , is under fire from his
former fraud victims
. According to the unlucky dupes, Mezvinsky stole more than $10 million
- and has yet to pay it back!
Mezvinsky, the father of Chelsea's husband, Marc , served five years in federal prison after
pilfering $10 million from investors. He was released in April 2008, but a special investigation
by The National ENQUIRER uncovered
the fact that he's currently accused of being in violation of his plea agreement - because he
hasn't paid back his victims!
"It's a little irritating that he brags about his son's
[$10.5 million] apartment
when his son should loan him the money to pay back his debt!" one
angry victim, Dr. Jason Theodosakis , told The ENQUIRER . "He could borrow [the restitution]
from his
son's in-law
"... Nobody of sound mind can dispute that there is something fundamentally wrong, and intrinsically corrupt, about a legal system that encourages police officers and prosecutors to do everything in their power to persuade you and your children (no matter how young or old) to "do the right thing" and talk-when they tell their own children the exact opposite. ..."
Everywhere 1 go, 1 just about always make a point to ask how many people in attendance have a parent who is a police officer
or a prosecutor-and of those attendees, what their parents have advised them about the Fifth Amendment. In almost every group,
there is at least one student who tells me that his father is a state trooper, or that her mother is a prosecu- tor. Every time
this happens, without exception, the student in question has told me basically the same thing: "Years ago, my parents explained
to me that if I were ever approached by a law enforcement officer, I was to call them immediately, and they made sure that I would
never agree to talk to the police." (Most of these young people also volunteered that their parents in law enforcement advised
them to never allow an officer to search their apartment or car, but that is the subject for another book.) Not once have I met
the child of a member of law enforcement who had been told anything different. Everyone who is privileged enough to know how the
criminal justice system operates in America would never advise their loved ones to waive the right to remain silent in the face
of a criminal investigation. We routinely see people in power, such police officers and government officials, pleading the fifth
(like Lois Lerner, the former director of the Internal Revenue vice's Exempt Organizations unit, who asserted her Fifth
Amendment privilege and refused to answer any questions when she was summoned before a congressional committee in 2013).' These
are officials who have made a career out of talking people into waiving their right to remain silent, but when the questions are
suddenly directed at them, they will not waive their own.
You need to pause for a moment and let that sink in. It doesn't matter whether you are a liberal or conservative. I do not
even care whether you are heartless enough to remain unconcerned about the fact that our legal system routinely convicts innocent
people. Nobody of sound mind can dispute that there is something fundamentally wrong, and intrinsically corrupt, about a legal
system that encourages police officers and prosecutors to do everything in their power to persuade you and your children (no matter
how young or old) to "do the right thing" and talk-when they tell their own children the exact opposite. I intend to bring
to an end, once and for all, that obscene double standard in the American criminal justice system that allows only the citizens
who are in the know to protect themselves from a legal system that is designed to prey upon
... ... ...
If a police officer encounters you in one of those moments, he or she has every right to ask you two simple questions. Memorize
these two questions so you will not be tempted to answer any others:
Who are you?
What are you doing right here, right now?
If you are ever approached by a police officer with those two questions, and your God-given common sense tells you that the
officer is being reasonable in asking for an explana- tion, don't be a jerk. Even if you are angry and frustrated about being
locked out of your house, try to see this from the police's point of view. They are only looking out for your best interests.
Would you want them to ask those same questions of any other individual caught breaking in through one of your windows, or watching
your family? Of course you would. If you have an innocent explanation for your presence at that time and in that place, tell the
police about it. Tell them that it is your own house. Or tell them that you are in an empty courthouse in the middle of the night
because you work there, and show diem your identification. They will appreciate your cooperation, and that will be the end of
it. If you unreasonably refuse to answer those two questions, they might put you under arrest, and I would not blame them.
... ... ... ...
No, the advice contained in this book-the same advice that police officers give their own children-is not based on any assumptions
or suspicions about the overall morality of police officers. It is based on two simple but unavoidable facts about every police
officer, including the most noble and virtu- ous. The only two problems I have with die police (although they are very big problems)
are these: The first problem with the police is that they are only human. They cannot know everything. For instance, when confronted
with opposing accounts of the same situation, they cannot know who is really telling them the truth. And because they are only
human, police officers, just like all of us, do not like to be embarrassed by admitting that they made some sort of a mistake,
especially if it concerns a matter so serious that it might lead to diem being sued. They do not even like to admit it to themselves.
That is why police officers, like all humans, are subject to a powerful phenomenon that psychologists call confirmation bias.
This means that after they have come to a conclusion, especially if it is a conclusion that they have publicly announced (for
example, by arresting someone and accusing him of a serious crime), it is very difficult for them to admit that perhaps they have
made a terrible mistake. It is much easier and more comfortable for them to convince them- selves that they did not make a mistake,
and that their initial accusations were correct. Their memories will gladly cooperate in that effort. Even if they are not aware
of how it is hap- pening, they might recall nonexistent details to coincide with and corroborate the story they have already begun
persuading themselves to believe.
Just like the rest of us, police are frustrated by important and difficult questions for which
there are no discernable answers. And, just like us, they love the powerful psychological satisfaction that comes from convincing
themselves that in fact the riddle lias been solved. When a terrible crime is committed, every human being with a heart desperately
wants to believe that we can find the offender. And if there is only one suspect available to us, most of us are surprisingly
good at convincing ourselves that maybe he or she really is the one to blame, and that perhaps the circumstantial evidence against
him or her is fairly powerful after all.
But the fact that police officers are "only human" is only one of the two problems. The other problem is that they are working
within a legal system that is highly imperfect. That is not their fault, because they did not design the system. But as this hook
will demonstrate, it is a broken svstcm that relies deception when they are interviewing criminal suspects. They receive sophisticated
training at the police academy in methods of interrogation that arc remarkably successful in getting guilty people to make confessions
and incriminating statements.4 You cannot blame them for using such methods-after all, we all agree that guilty people (at least
the dangerous ones) ought to be caught and put behind bars-but the problem is that these methods of calculated deception are too
effective. They do not merely work on the guilty. At least some of these methods, it turns out, have proven to be just as effective
in getting innocent people to make incriminating statements, and sometimes even outright confessions.
Do not think for a minute that you can trust a police officer who seems to be open minded and undecided about whether he will
arrest you after you are finished with an "inter- view"-the police are trained to act that way, to get you to talk with them for
many hours until you finally give up in exhaustion. "The most recent and comprehensive investigation, which took a careful look
at 250 prisoners exonerated by DNA evidence, found that 16 percent of them made what's called a false confession: admitting their
commission of a crime that they did not commit.5 Those are the cases in which the defendant actually confessed; in many more cases,
the innocent suspect denied all guilt, sometimes for hours, but still gave the police a statement that was then used to help convict
him.
Shocking and persuasive, but light on practical advice
This is an excellent short book if you are interested in all
the ways answering questions from the police can destroy your life. The author makes clear that the most innocuous questions
have led to wrongful convictions and life sentences (there are no examples of people actually executed as a result, but that's
most likely because once someone is dead there is less effort to exonerate them).
The book is loaded with stories of people convicted of murder and rape solely on the basis of innocent answers given in
police questioning without a lawyer present, who were later proven innocent by DNA evidence or subsequent confession by the
real perpetrator (no doubt this occurs with other crimes as well, but DNA evidence is less likely to overturn convictions in
those cases). Some of these cases appear to involve police or prosecutor fraud, but most of them seem to be the operation of
standard police training.
Our criminal justice system would fall apart unless most guilty people confessed, or at least gave police enough information
to prove a case. For that reason, police are carefully trained in tricks and pressures to get convictions, and these techniques
can work on innocent people as well as guilty.
Courts have given wide discretion to the police to lie and cheat, and to prosecutors to use assertions of Constitutional
rights against defendants. Moreover people's natural instincts to help law enforcement, to be polite, to trust anyone acting
friendly and to seek comfort in highly stressful situations are used against them. None of this is new, of course.
The classic Jimmy Steward noir film
Call Northside
777 is based closely on a real 1932 case in which the police arrested a man fingered by organized crime, moved him from
station house to station house every two hours to keep him from his lawyer, questioned him continuously for 36 hours without
sleep, and convicted him mainly on the basis to two extremely minor inconsistencies in his answers that had nothing to do with
the crime (he said he was shelling walnuts at the time when his wife said he was pitting dates, he said a friend dropped by
because he'd had a fight with his father, the friend said there was no particular reason). The three witnesses failed to identify
him in a line-up, so the police falsified the arrest record to show that he had been arrested a day later, pressured one of
the witnesses to identify him, and claimed that was the first line-up.
Even with all these facts, the police, the mayor, the prosecutor and the governor of the state exerted enormous pressure
on the reporters investigating twelve years later to drop the story. The system hates to admit it was wrong, even in the most
obvious and egregious cases. Unfortunately, the book does little more than identify the issues and give the simple advice to
say literally nothing except, "I want a lawyer."
In one paragraph the author acknowledges that it's okay to answer police questions about who you are (although he doesn't
say this, this is a legal requirement in about half the states, so failing to answer can get you arrested) and what you are
doing at the moment; but to demand a lawyer before answering any questions about the past or anything else. This is fine advice
for most guilty people, or people who believe they are suspected of serious crimes, but it doesn't cover all cases. For example,
suppose you are walking down the street and a police officer stops you to ask if you saw a car driving north at high speed
a block or two back.
While it's possible that you're a suspect in a major crime and admitting you saw the car will be the crucial evidential
link that convicts you, it's a lot more likely that the police are looking for a fleeing felon or a hit-and-run driver, and
it's in the public interest, and your interest, to help them.
For a trickier example, consider the situation described in the book
American
Justice? You've swerved your car to avoid a child running in the road, and hit a parked car. When the police arrive, the
child says you tried to hit him. At this point, the police officers have a problem. If they laugh it off and you go mow down
a few other pedestrians, they're in big trouble.
But if they bring in an adult on a hard-to-believe charge on the basis of an accusation by a child, they can look pretty
silly. The stakes are very high for you. If you are arrested, as the woman was in the real case, things will start stacking
up against you, on top of the expense and humiliation of the arrest.
All the neighbors will hear is that you've been arrested for trying to kill a child, they will immediately remember all
kinds of strange or threatening things about you--it's human nature.
The police will have to justify their decision, they will remember you "trembling with barely suppressed rage" and giving
"evasive and inconsistent accounts." In the actual story, the child's father used the arrest as an excuse to institute civil
commitment proceedings, and was successful in forcing a two-week confinement for evaluation; even though the doctors found
nothing and criticized the judge for ordering the evaluation; a lot of damage was done. So what to do? If the child seems calm
and credible, and you say nothing but "I want a lawyer," the police officers are likely to take it as an admission of guilt
and start looking for ways to build the case against you.
If you say, "That's silly, officer, the child ran suddenly into the street and I swerved to avoid him," you have a much
better chance of avoiding arrest.
But if you are arrested, that statement could prove problematic in your defense, and certainly cannot help you. I could
also be misremembered as something like, "I can't be expected to avoid every silly child who runs into the street" (in this
respect, body cams can be a great help to the innocent).
Moreover it's going to lead to questions like, "Why do you think the child would accuse you," and "Have you ever been in
accidents before," that are more dangerous.
I think the author's perspective is distorted a bit by being a defense attorney. He only gets involved in these cases when
someone is seriously suspected of a major crime or arrested.
If you know you're going to be arrested, the less you say the better. But if answering questions keeps you out of jail,
or keeps the police focused on building cases against others, you win and you may never hire an attorney. So read this book
for the cautionary tales. It's well-written and shocking.
If you plan to commit crimes, or if for some reason you expect to be suspected, the book has all the advice you need. But
for most people it only tells you what not to do, it's not much help for deciding what to do.
Braden Lynchon
October 24, 2016 Format: MP3 CD Verified Purchase
Fantastic insights that will make your blood boil
One observation that cops and judges advise their own children to shut up and get a lawyer while expecting us citizens to
do otherwise speaks volumes. The miscarriages of justice and the perversion of the justice system highlighted will make you
never want to speak to a policeman ever again.
There is no upside to interactions with law enforcement is the well supported theme. I know my behavior and deteriorating
attitude towards LEOs has been cemented. I appreciate and respect them; I just do not want to be the object of their suspicion
and I am super-law-abiding.
Charles B. Jessee on
October 5, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
''I want a lawyer.
The summary conclusion, is that the only thing you need say to the police is "I want a lawyer."
But yes, there is more to it than that. The 2008 Viral Video should be watched, as should the 2016 CATO Institute video promoting
and discussing this book.
The times, they are a changing. How you say what you are not going to say, is as important as not saying anything. Does
that have you wondering? It should. Honest people at the right place, wrong place, right time, wrong time.
What they say and don't say might mean the police just walk away with hardly a nod, or life in jail, if not death row. Got
your attention yet?
John W. Whitehead by Otto Battista on October 6, 2016 at 7:52 AM
"Our carceral state banishes American citizens to a gray wasteland far beyond the promises and protections the government grants
its other citizens When the doors finally close and one finds oneself facing
banishment to the carceral state -the years, the walls, the rules, the guards, the inmates-reactions vary. Some experience
an intense sickening feeling. Others, a strong desire to sleep. Visions of suicide. A deep shame. A rage directed toward guards
and other inmates. Utter disbelief. The incarcerated attempt to hold on to family and old social ties through phone calls and
visitations. At first, friends and family do their best to keep up. But phone calls to prison are expensive, and many prisons
are located far from one's hometown As the visits and phone calls diminish, the incarcerated begins to adjust to the fact that
he or she is, indeed, a prisoner. New social ties are cultivated. New rules must be understood."-Ta-Nehisi Coates, TheAtlantic
In a carceral state-a.k.a. a prison state or a police state-there is no Fourth Amendment to protect you from the overreaches,
abuses, searches and probing eyes of government overlords.
In a carceral state, there is no difference between the treatment meted out to a law-abiding citizen and a convicted felon: both
are equally suspect and treated as criminals, without any of the special rights and privileges reserved for the governing elite.
In a carceral state, there are only two kinds of people: the prisoners and the prison guards.
With every new law enacted by federal and state legislatures, every new ruling handed down by government courts, and every new
military weapon, invasive tactic and egregious protocol employed by government agents, "we the people"-the prisoners of the American
police state-are being pushed that much further into a corner, our backs against the prison wall.
This concept of a carceral state in which we possess no rights except for that which the government grants on an as-needed basis
is the only way I can begin to comprehend, let alone articulate, the irrational, surreal, topsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass
state of affairs that is being imposed upon us in America today.
Indeed, we are experiencing much the same phenomenon that journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates ascribes to those who are banished to a
"
gray wasteland far beyond the promises and protections the government grants its other citizens " : a sickening feeling, a desire
to sleep, hopelessness, shame, rage, disbelief, clinginess to the past and that which is familiar, and then eventually resignation
and acceptance of our new "normal."
All that we are experiencing-the sense of dread at what is coming down the pike, the desperation, the apathy about government
corruption, the deeply divided partisanship, the carnivalesque political spectacles, the public displays of violence, the nostalgia
for the past-are part of the dying refrain of an America that is fading fast.
No longer must the government obey the law.
Likewise, "we the people" are no longer shielded by the rule of law.
While the First Amendment-which gives us a voice-is being muzzled, the Fourth Amendment-which protects us from being bullied,
badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents-is being disemboweled.
For instance, in a recent
5-3 ruling in Utah
v. Strieff , the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for police to stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable
suspicion or probable cause, effectively giving police a green light to embark on a fishing expedition of one's person and property,
rendering Americans completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.
This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants-so long as he can point to a pretextual justification
after the fact. That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, but it may
factor in your ethnicity, where you live, what you were wearing, and how you behaved.
The officer does
not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction-even one that
is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous.
The indignity
of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. The officer may next ask for your "consent"
to inspect your bag or purse without telling you that you can decline. Regardless of your answer, he may order you to stand "helpless,
perhaps facing a wall with [your] hands raised." If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he may then "frisk" you for weapons.
This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may "'feel with sensitive fingers every portion of
[your] body. A thorough search [may] be made of [your] arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles,
and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.'"
If you still can't read the writing on the wall, Sotomayor breaks it down further: "This case allows the police to stop you on
the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants-
even if you are doing
nothing wrong So long as the target is one of the many millions of people in this country with an outstanding arrest warrant,
anything the officer finds in a search is fair game for use in a criminal prosecution. The officer's incentive to violate the Constitution
thus increases "
Just consider some of the many other ways in which the Fourth Amendment-which ensures that the government can't harass you, let
alone even investigate you, without probable cause-has been weakened and undermined by the courts, the legislatures and various government
agencies and operatives.
Breath tests, blood draws : Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint, although
mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment ( Birchfield v. North Dakota ).
Ignorance of the law is defensible if you work for the government: Police officers who violate the law can be granted qualified
immunity if they claim ignorance of the law ( Heien v. North Carolina ). That rationale was also applied to
police who clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop and were granted
immunity from prosecution
High–speed car chases: Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits ( Plumhoff v.Rickard
).
No–knock raids: Police can perform a "no-knock" as long as they have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their
presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile or give occupants a chance to destroy evidence of a crime
( Richards v. Wisconsin ). Legal ownership of a firearm is also enough to justify a no-knock raid by police ( Quinn
v. Texas ).
Warrantless searches by police : Police can carry out warrantless searches on our homes based on a "reasonable" concern by police
that a suspect (or occupant) might be attempting to destroy evidence, fleeing or hurt, even if it's the wrong house ( Kentucky
v. King ). Police can also, without a warrant, search anyone who has been lawfully arrested ( United States
v. Robinson ) as well as their property post-arrest ( Colorado v. Bertine ) and their vehicle ( New
Yorkv.Belton ), search a car they suspect might contain evidence of a crime ( Chambers v. Maroney ), and
search a home when the arrest is made on its premises ( Maryland v. Buie ).
Forced DNA extractions: Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you've been convicted of a crime. Innocent or not, your
DNA will then be stored in the national FBI database ( Maryland v. King ).
Strip searches : Police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the "offense" ( Florence v. BoardofChosen
Freeholders of the County of Burlington ). This "license to probe" is now being extended
to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches-some involving anal and
vaginal probes-without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.
Seizures : For all intents and purposes, you're "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment from the moment an officer
stops you ( Brendlin v. California ).
Search warrants on a leash : Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as "search warrants on leashes," justifying any
and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside ( Florida v. Harris ), but the use of a K-9 unit after
a reasonable amount of time has passed during a stop does violate the Fourth Amendment ( Rodriguez v. UnitedStates
).
Police and DUI Checkpoints: Police can conduct sobriety and "information-seeking" checkpoints ( Illinois v. Lidster
and Mich. Dep't of State Police v. Sitz ).
Interrogating public transit passengers : Police officers are free to board a bus, question passengers, and ask for consent to
search without notifying them of their right to refuse ( U.S v. Drayton ).
Warrantless arrests for minor criminal offenses : Police can arrest you for minor criminal offenses, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt
violation, punishable only by a fine ( Atwater v. City of Lago Vista ).
Stop and identify: Refusing to answer when a policeman asks "What's your name?" can rightfully be considered a crime. No longer
do Americans, even those not charged with any crime, have the right to remain altogether silent when stopped and questioned by a
police officer ( Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State
of Nevada ).
Traffic stops: As long as police have reasonable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred, they may stop any vehicle
( Whren v. U.S. ). If probable cause justifies a vehicle search, then every part of the vehicle can be searched (
U.S. v. Ross ). A vehicle can be stopped even if the driver has not committed a traffic offense ( U.S. v. Cortez ).
Anonymous tips, careful driving, rigid posture and acne: Police officers can stop cars based only on "anonymous" tips ( Navarette
v. California ). Police can also pull you over if you are driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic
route, and have acne ( U.S. v. Westhoven ).
What many Americans fail to understand is the devastating amount of damage that can be done to one's freedoms long before a case
ever makes its way to court by government agents who are violating the Fourth Amendment at every turn. This is how freedoms, long
undermined, can give way to tyranny through constant erosion and become part of the fabric of the police state through constant use.
Phone and email surveillance, databases for dissidents, threat assessments, terror watch lists, militarized police, SWAT team
raids, security checkpoints, lockdowns, roadside strip searches: there was a time when any one of these encroachments on our Fourth
Amendment rights would have roused the public to outrage. Today, such violations are shrugged off matter-of-factly by Americans who
have been assiduously groomed to accept the intrusions of the police state into their private lives.
It's true that there may be little the average person can do to push back against the police state on a national level, but there
remains some hope at the local level as long as we retain a speck of our independence and individuality-as long as we can resist
the defeatist sense of double-consciousness (a phrase coined by W. E. B. Du Bois in which we view ourselves as inferior through the
prism of our oppressors)-as long as we continue to cry out for justice for ourselves and those around us-as long as we refuse to
be shackled and made prisoners-and as long as we continue to recognize that the only way the police state can truly acquire and retain
power is if we relinquish it through our negligence, complacence and ignorance.
Unfortunately, we have been utterly brainwashed into believing the government's propaganda and lies. Americans actually celebrate
with perfect sincerity the anniversary of our independence from Great Britain without ever owning up to the fact that we are as oppressed
now-more so, perhaps, thanks to advances in technology-than we ever were when Redcoats stormed through doorways and subjected colonists
to the vagaries of a police state.
You see, by gradually whittling away at our freedoms-free speech, assembly, due process, privacy, etc.-the government has, in
effect, liberated itself from its contractual agreement to respect our constitutional rights while resetting the calendar back to
a time when we had no Bill of Rights to protect us from the long arm of the government.
Aided and abetted by the legislatures, the courts and Corporate America, the government has been busily rewriting the contract
(a.k.a. the Constitution) that establishes the citizenry as the masters and agents of the government as the servants. We are now
only as good as we are useful, and our usefulness is calculated on an economic scale by how much we are worth-in terms of profit
and resale value-to our "owners."
Under the new terms of this one-sided agreement, the government and its many operatives have all the privileges and rights and
"we the prisoners" have none.
As Sotomayor concluded in her ringing dissent in
Utah v. Strieff :
By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and
innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts
excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that
you are not a citizen of a democracy but
the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged . We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely
targeted by police are "isolated." They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one
can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and
threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.
"... Human rights organizations, as well as political and social ones, are condemning what they are calling a new form of inhumane exploitation in the United States, where they say a prison population of up to 2 million – mostly Black and Hispanic – are working for various industries for a pittance. For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of gold. They don't have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance, vacations or comp time. All of their workers are full-time, and never arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if they don't like the pay of 25 cents an hour and refuse to work, they are locked up in isolation cells. ..."
This article was first published by Global Research in March 2008
Human rights organizations, as well as political and social ones, are condemning what they are calling a new form of inhumane
exploitation in the United States, where they say a prison population of up to 2 million – mostly Black and Hispanic – are working
for various industries for a pittance. For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of
gold. They don't have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance, vacations or comp time. All of their workers are full-time,
and never arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if they don't like the pay of 25 cents an hour and refuse
to work, they are locked up in isolation cells.
There are approximately 2 million inmates in state, federal and private prisons throughout the country. According to California
Prison Focus, "no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."
The figures show that the United States has locked up more people than any other country: a half million more than China, which
has a population five times greater than the U.S. Statistics reveal that the United States holds 25% of the world's prison population,
but only 5% of the world's people. From less than 300,000 inmates in 1972, the jail population grew to 2 million by the year 2000.
In 1990 it was one million. Ten years ago there were only five private prisons in the country, with a population of 2,000 inmates;
now, there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. It is expected that by the coming decade, the number will hit 360,000, according to reports.
What has happened over the last 10 years? Why are there so many prisoners?
"The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate
stockholders who make money off prisoners' work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand their workforce. The system feeds
itself," says a study by the Progressive Labor Party, which accuses the prison industry of being "an imitation of Nazi Germany
with respect to forced slave labor and concentration camps."
The prison industry complex is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States and its investors are on Wall Street.
"This multimillion-dollar industry has its own trade exhibitions, conventions, websites, and mail-order/Internet catalogs. It also
has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies, investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply
companies, food supply companies, armed security, and padded cells in a large variety of colors."
CRIME GOES DOWN, JAIL POPULATION GOES UP
According to reports by human rights organizations, these are the factors that increase the profit potential for those who invest
in the prison industry complex:
. Jailing persons convicted of non-violent crimes, and long prison sentences for possession of microscopic quantities of illegal
drugs. Federal law stipulates five years' imprisonment without possibility of parole for possession of 5 grams of crack or 3.5 ounces
of heroin, and 10 years for possession of less than 2 ounces of rock-cocaine or crack. A sentence of 5 years for cocaine powder requires
possession of 500 grams – 100 times more than the quantity of rock cocaine for the same sentence. Most of those who use cocaine powder
are white, middle-class or rich people, while mostly Blacks and Latinos use rock cocaine. In Texas, a person may be sentenced for
up to two years' imprisonment for possessing 4 ounces of marijuana. Here in New York, the 1973 Nelson Rockefeller anti-drug law provides
for a mandatory prison sentence of 15 years to life for possession of 4 ounces of any illegal drug.
. The passage in 13 states of the "three strikes" laws (life in prison after being convicted of three felonies), made it necessary
to build 20 new federal prisons. One of the most disturbing cases resulting from this measure was that of a prisoner who for stealing
a car and two bicycles received three 25-year sentences.
. Longer sentences.
. The passage of laws that require minimum sentencing, without regard for circumstances.
. A large expansion of work by prisoners creating profits that motivate the incarceration of more people for longer periods of
time.
. More punishment of prisoners, so as to lengthen their sentences.
HISTORY OF PRISON LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES
Prison labor has its roots in slavery. After the 1861-1865 Civil War, a system of "hiring out prisoners" was introduced in order
to continue the slavery tradition. Freed slaves were charged with not carrying out their sharecropping commitments (cultivating someone
else's land in exchange for part of the harvest) or petty thievery – which were almost never proven – and were then "hired out" for
cotton picking, working in mines and building railroads. From 1870 until 1910 in the state of Georgia, 88% of hired-out convicts
were Black. In Alabama, 93% of "hired-out" miners were Black. In Mississippi, a huge prison farm similar to the old slave plantations
replaced the system of hiring out convicts. The notorious Parchman plantation existed until 1972.
During the post-Civil War period, Jim Crow racial segregation laws were imposed on every state, with legal segregation in schools,
housing, marriages and many other aspects of daily life. "Today, a new set of markedly racist laws is imposing slave labor and sweatshops
on the criminal justice system, now known as the prison industry complex," comments the Left Business Observer.
Who is investing?
At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state
prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless,
Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom's,
Revlon, Macy's, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation
by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries
generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum.
And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of
$20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call
"highly skilled positions." At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There,
they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month.
Thanks to prison labor, the United States is once again an attractive location for investment in work that was designed for Third
World labor markets. A company that operated a maquiladora (assembly plant in Mexico near the border) closed down its operations
there and relocated to San Quentin State Prison in California. In Texas, a factory fired its 150 workers and contracted the services
of prisoner-workers from the private Lockhart Texas prison, where circuit boards are assembled for companies like IBM and Compaq.
[Former] Oregon State Representative Kevin Mannix recently urged Nike to cut its production in Indonesia and bring it to his
state, telling the shoe manufacturer that "there won't be any transportation costs; we're offering you competitive prison labor
(here)."
PRIVATE PRISONS
The prison privatization boom began in the 1980s, under the governments of Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr., but reached its height
in the 1990s under William Clinton, when Wall Street stocks were selling like hotcakes. Clinton's program for cutting the federal
workforce resulted in the Justice Departments contracting of private prison corporations for the incarceration of undocumented workers
and high-security inmates.
Private prisons are the biggest business in the prison industry complex. About 18 corporations guard 10,000 prisoners in 27 states.
The two largest are Correctional Corporation of America (CCA) and Wackenhut, which together control 75%. Private prisons receive
a guaranteed amount of money for each prisoner, independent of what it costs to maintain each one. According to Russell Boraas, a
private prison administrator in Virginia, "the secret to low operating costs is having a minimal number of guards for the maximum
number of prisoners." The CCA has an ultra-modern prison in Lawrenceville, Virginia, where five guards on dayshift and two at night
watch over 750 prisoners. In these prisons, inmates may get their sentences reduced for "good behavior," but for any infraction,
they get 30 days added – which means more profits for CCA. According to a study of New Mexico prisons, it was found that CCA inmates
lost "good behavior time" at a rate eight times higher than those in state prisons.
IMPORTING AND EXPORTING INMATES
Profits are so good that now there is a new business: importing inmates with long sentences, meaning the worst criminals. When
a federal judge ruled that overcrowding in Texas prisons was cruel and unusual punishment, the CCA signed contracts with sheriffs
in poor counties to build and run new jails and share the profits. According to a December 1998 Atlantic Monthly magazine article,
this program was backed by investors from Merrill-Lynch, Shearson-Lehman, American Express and Allstate, and the operation was scattered
all over rural Texas. That state's governor, Ann Richards, followed the example of Mario Cuomo in New York and built so many state
prisons that the market became flooded, cutting into private prison profits.
After a law signed by Clinton in 1996 – ending court supervision and decisions – caused overcrowding and violent, unsafe conditions
in federal prisons, private prison corporations in Texas began to contact other states whose prisons were overcrowded, offering "rent-a-cell"
services in the CCA prisons located in small towns in Texas. The commission for a rent-a-cell salesman is $2.50 to $5.50 per day
per bed. The county gets $1.50 for each prisoner.
STATISTICS
Ninety-seven percent of 125,000 federal inmates have been convicted of non-violent crimes. It is believed that more than half
of the 623,000 inmates in municipal or county jails are innocent of the crimes they are accused of. Of these, the majority are awaiting
trial. Two-thirds of the one million state prisoners have committed non-violent offenses. Sixteen percent of the country's 2 million
prisoners suffer from mental illness.
Both of you make good points, but so does Gross without getting into too much detail. Fact
is that we have a serious prison problem that needs to be addressed, and it all comes down to
the USD, borders, laws, ect. in any argument. Crime usually goes down when people are not desparate.
Look at Detroit, it has always had the bad side, but it had it's roots in manufacturing. A citizen
could get a job, no matter how unskilled, at one point in time. Right now is just a time to wait
until results are in to decide how to proceed, for everyone included, otherwise the individual
investor could end up on the wrong end of the stick.
You both, and Bill Gross too -missed a major point. The FED, the FED and also -the FED. Its
not entirely your fault that you guys missed it, although I would hope a few on ZH would see it.
First -as 'inflation' eats into people's (in real terms declining) wages, something has to
fill in for the loss in the earnings/costs equation -ie more crime. Secondly (but so closely related
it isn't funny) 'inflation' also lowers the bar on what is or isn't a 'felony' or 'major' crime.
Look -when the gov't arbitrarily decided that any crime resulting in loss greater than $400.00
was a felony you could buy a brand new car or two brand new Harley Davidson motorcycles for less
than $400.00. $400.00 was 16 ounces of pure gold! The average laborer had to work an entire year
to earn that much! That is why "grand theft auto" is a felony regardless of the vehicle's value.
Today, $400.00 a week will barely cover the rent, and is (in today's fix) 1/3 of one ounce of
gold; yet, the laws have never been adjusted for 'inflation' -which means, as more and more things
become more and more expensive, more and more 'felonies' will be committed as the threshold drops
lower and lower, until a day will (soon) come where the 'money' has been debased so much that
a simple loaf of bread will be so 'expensive' that its theft will be a felony . Monetary debasement
'inflation' leads into prison inflation because the laws are never adjusted for the loss of value
inherent in fiat 'money' (probably because that would bring too big a spotlight on the entire
Fiat scam.)
The FED 'targets' a 2% yearly 'inflation' rate, which means (by definition) a 2% increase in
the number of felonies -compounded annually. And look where we are today... compare a graph of
monetary debasement (inflation) from 1913 to today, and compare it to the prison population over
the same time. In this case, correlation is causation.
It. Is. Just. That. Simple.
edit (in case you were wondering, if felonies were to be 'inflation adjusted' -the cutoff should
be around $38,800 instead of a paltry $400.00 -what do you suppose the prison population would
look like in that case?)
xavi1951 makes an extraordinarily brilliant point: just look at Chile for example.
Under Pinochet their rate was even smaller --- of course he disappeared (murdered, and tortured
to death) over 30,000 including hapless Americans in the vicinity at the time!
One could same something similar about a number of other countries on the chart!
[Dec 07, 2016] Crimes of Crisis vs. Crimes of Opportunity
Notable quotes:
"... The defendant had a law degree and an honorary doctorate from a Bible college. The PSI notes that he had assets of $680,000 and that his sister was married to an American diplomat. ..."
Our
readings of
the presentence
investigations
of offenders
with only
one or
two arrests
on their
rap sheets
reinforce our
The first we call "crisis
responders" because their crimes seem to be situational
responses to real stress or crisis in their professional or
personal lives. The second group we define as "opportunity
takers, " since their criminality is linked strongly to some
unusual or special set of opportunities that suddenly
materialize for the offender.
In this context, a simple
explanation for their criminality might be to argue that
these are people who merely "strayed" beyond the ambiguous
line that often separates legitimate and illegitimate
activities. In this view it would be misleading to define
such people as criminals at all. Rather, we might see them as
individuals who unintentionally commit crimes, either through
ignorance of the law or through some naiveté or attachment to
competing religious or political norms.
All my business life and
all my personal life, I don't believe I've ever set out or
attempted to do one thing that would cheat anyone. I still
believe this to this day that there is no way in my makeup
that I could lead myself to believe that I was going to
cheat anybody. I was forced by circumstances to make a
decision as to whether or not to stay in business by
obtaining funds improperly and I made the wrong decision.
Of course, such statements are
self-serving in the context of a plea to a judge for
mitigation of the defendant's sentence, and an alleged crisis
may serve as a vehicle for the defendant to neutralize or
rationalize the stigma of his conviction both for himself and
others (see Sykes and Matza, 1957). Nonetheless, they have a
certain credibility that is often reinforced by probation
officers. The criminal acts appear anomalous within the
offenders' social records, and the fact that most of these
low-frequency offenders do not come to the attention of
criminal justice agents (at least as indicated by arrests) in
the ten years or more that follow this event reinforces their
own accounts.
It is important to remember
that the term white collar, as applied to occupation, refers
to characteristics of a job, regardless of the pay, prestige,
or educational achievement associated with it. Important in
determining if a person is in a white-collar occupation is
whether they are involved in the direct production of goods,
whether the skills involved are manual or intellectual, and
whether there is trust given to them.
Opportunity Takers
A second broad group of
low-frequency offenders can be termed "opportunity takers. "
As with the crisis responders, the crimes of these offenders
often appear inconsistent with their social records. However,
it was not a perceived crisis that led them to participate in
crime, but the desire to take advantage of some specific
criminal opportunity.
One defendant, for example, was
faced suddenly with a potential for the economic success that
had eluded him his entire life. The defendant, a son of
European immigrants, had worked for eighteen years as a
transfer clerk at the U. S. Post Office when his location was
closed. Although offered a transfer, he decided, instead, to
begin working full time as a stock trader, a profession in
which he had worked part time for the preceding two years. In
his new profession he became involved in a number of
violations of securities laws, although his conviction was
for a tax offense involving his failure to report income he
had earned in commissions from stock trading. The defendant
explained:
Business on Wall Street was
in one of the biggest booms ever. People were making money
hand over fist. I had never in my life seen anything like
it. It was like a dream or something that I had read about
in fiction novels. People around me kept telling me to
jump on the so-called band wagon – how easy it was to make
money quickly. "Buy new issues" they told me. "Trade in
any name"; they said After working so many years and
putting in 16–20 hour days, six and seven days per week,
and seeing how
people around me were making
money so easily, I succumbed to their advice . All I knew
was that for the first time in my whole life I was finally
making money for my family .
The category of opportunity
takers includes a number of offenders with two recorded
arrests. One offender, for example, underreported his income
for tax purposes. He initially described the incident this
way: "I had a grocery store. [A large dairy company] gives
rebates. I put this rebate money in my account and forgot to
tell my accountant about it. " However, his final version of
the events was revised to admit that he had engaged in more
extensive mishandling and misreporting of funds. The
probation officer summed up his view of the case: "After
completing the sixth grade, defendant dropped out of school.
In spite of his lack of formal education, he has been
industrious and acquired the middle-class comforts for
himself and his family. It is most likely this ambition which
eventually turned to greed that led to the instant offense. "
His prior offense had been a violation of the National Motor
Vehicle Act in 1947 for which he received a sixmonth
sentence.
In another case an offender had utilized a blue box to avoid
paying phone bills and was convicted of mail and wire fraud.
There was no evidence of any special crisis. He had read
several articles about blue boxes and decided to try one. A
self-employed businessman (he owned an electronics
manufacturing company), he earned a B. A. on scholarship and
had an intact marriage at the time of his white-collar crime.
Beyond a dismissed assault charge when the defendant was
sixteen, there is no other evidence of involvement with the
criminal justice system.
A number of those we term
opportunity takers were naturalized American citizens, many
of them immigrants. For example, a Korean-born civic leader
was convicted of offering a $600 bribe to an IRS agent.
The defendant had a law degree and an honorary doctorate from
a Bible college. The PSI notes that he had assets of $680,000
and that his sister was married to an American diplomat.
He was active in civic activities and received a number of
letters of support from public dignitaries. He explained his
offense by noting:
Many of the opportunity
takers were recruited into participation in the crime by
others. In some cases the relationship between the
co-offenders is one of equality in which the opportunity
to commit the crime involves the coming together of
conspirators. In other cases the co-offending comes about
when an individual joins an ongoing offense either as a
"customer, " as in some blue box cases, or to fill a
particular role, such as an insider in the organization
being victimized (see Waring, 1993). Often these are very
specific and time-limited violations of the law. For
example, in one case a jockey was recruited into a
conspiracy to fix a single horse race.
Reflecting Sutherland's
original interest in white-collar crime, some cases involving
large co-offending conspiracies went on for decades and
participants appeared to be socialized into a criminal
conspiracy. Sutherland (1940, p. 10) suggested that
whitecollar criminality, like criminality more generally, is
"learned in direct association with those who already
practice the behavior. " These cases appear to follow this
model closely. Offenders who lead otherwise conventional
lives take advantage of a set of specific opportunities
despite their understanding that the behaviors involved are
criminal.
The crimes are usually defined
as part of the normal procedures at their families'
businesses, or in their business networks. In a case that had
its origins in the 1920s, one of the defendants, a company
president and leader of the conspiracy, commented: "This
offense arises out of family ties and relationships that
predate me. "
The offender was very active in
community organizations, and sat on the board of a local
savings and loan for 25 years. In addition to the family
relationships, the conspirators met regularly as part of a
local professional association.
From Amazon review: "One day someone will write a comprehensive, scholarly and multi-disciplinary
study of the phenomenon of federal overcriminalization. Until then, this is a valuable resource for
a topic thus far known mostly through experience and anecdote. The author/editor has collected several
law review articles, all of which were apparently published before in other places under the auspices
of the Cato Institute. Each of these articles is excellent, but they are all quite specialized, and
serve only as case studies."
After a defendant has been investigated by law enforcement, indicted by grand jury, and found
guilty at trial (or through a plea bargain), the trial judge must determine an appropriate punishment
under the Guidelines. Depending on the crime of conviction and various factors related to the offender
and the offense, a federal judge will typically sentence the convicted defendant to a term of imprisonment
and possibly a criminal fine. Of course, the federal system is dwarfed by the combined criminal justice
systems of the individual states, the primary crime fighters in American society. Of the nearly 2
million inmates in the United States, fewer than 10 percent are presently serving federal sentences.1
Nonetheless, the federal system remains influential in the national debate on crime and punishment,
presenting a prominent model for other jurisdictions in their penological experimentation. For better
or worse, federal law enforcement continues to dominate certain categories of crime-such as drug
offenses, immigration violations, and white-collar crime-often to the point of occupying the field.
This tendency, particularly for narcotics offenses,2 has only increased since the enactment
of the Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a federal prison population that has quadrupled in just
a decade and a half.3 In 1999, for example, more than 50,000 offenders were
Some commentators have tried to distinguish the Guidelines from another federal sentencing phenomenon:
mandatory minimum sentences.5 But both the Guidelines and statutory minimums are manifestations
of the same trend-mandatory or "determinate" sentencing. It is almost Orwellian doublespeak to call
the present regime guidelines, given that judges must follow these sentencing rules or face
reversal by appellate courts. in fact, the commission has even made the "Freudian slip"6
of calling the Guidelines "mandatory."7 Both mandatory minimums and the Guidelines attempt
to purge sentencing discretion in federal trial courts, all but precluding judges from departing
from the strictures of determinate punishment. Far from being alternatives, these two schemes feed
off each other in curbing judicial discretion. For that reason, both the Sentencing Guidelines and
mandatory minimums will be collectively referred to in this chapter as the "Guidelines."
Although the Guidelines are frowned upon from all corners of the criminal justice system, the
federal judiciary has been particularly adamant in its opposition to the current sentencing regime.
Federal judges have described the Guidelines as "a dismal failure," "a farce," and "out of whack;"8
"a dark, sinister, and cynical crime management program" with "a certain Kafkaesque aura about it;"9
and "the greatest travesty of justice in our legal system in this century."10 In 1990,
the Federal courts Study committee received testimony from 270 witnesses-including judges, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, probation officers, and federal officials-and only four people expressed support
for the Guidelines: the U.S. Attorney General and three members of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.11
Surveys of the judiciary have confirmed widespread disapproval of the Guidelines: A1997 survey concluded
that more than two-thirds of federal judges view the Guidelines as unnecessary
in nature throughout much of the 20th century, allegedly pursuant to the rehabilitative ideal
fostered by American prison reformers.13 Primary control over sentencing was vested in
the district court. With few exceptions, Congress provided only maximum terms of incarceration for
federal crimes, allowing trial judges unbounded discretion to sentence offenders short of the upper
limit-including no prison time at all (probation). Federal trial judges played a role that was part
social worker, part soothsayer-gauging the length of sentence on the basis of an unguided evaluation
of the necessary conditions for rehabilitation and indoctrination of pro-social behavior. To be sure,
this regime suffered from several serious defects. Sentencing judges were dictatorial in practice:
The district court was not required to provide reasons for any particular punishment, and so long
as the term was within the broad statutory boundaries, the sentence was not subject to review on
appeal. As a result, the federal system lacked any mechanism that might ensure a degree of intercase
equity in punishment.
Scholars and practitioners came to regard the system as fundamentally unfair and "lawless,"14
spurring a somewhat remarkable confluence of critics, each with his own set of grievances. Civil
rights activists contended that sentence length was often correlated with disturbing classifications,
such as race and socioeconomic status. In contrast, political conservatives condemned the prevailing
system for allowing "bleeding heart" judges to dole out lenient punishment for hardened criminals.
Judge as Accountant: Sentencing under the Guidelines
Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of capricious variations among truly comparable
criminals,17 the image and anecdotes of unequal punishment became widely accepted in the 1970s and
early 1980s. Among others, Marvin Frankel was a particularly influential voice against the prevailing
discretion in sentencing.
His 1973 book, Criminal Sentences: Law without Order, lambasted the federal system for its "unruliness,
the absence of rational ordering, the unbridled power of the sentencers to be arbitrary and discriminatory,"18
all of which should be "terrifying and intolerable for a society that professes devotion to the rule
of law."19 Judge Frankel's remedy was the establishment of an administrative agency-"a commission
on sentencing"20-to develop rules that would provide direction for trial courts in determining appropriate
punishment. The agency would be insulated from political pressures that distort rational decisionmaking,
Frankel argued, and over time the administrators would develop a level of expertise beyond that of
congressional generalists.
Behind Judge Frankel's proposal was an abiding conviction that the bureaucratic model of modern
society could apply jot-for-jot to the practice of punishment. Sentencing could be pursuant to a
"detailed profile or checklist of factors that would include, wherever possible, some form of numerical
or other objective grading."21 The resulting "chart or calculus" would be used "by the sentencing
judge in weighing the many elements that go into a sentence."22 Frankel even foresaw "the possibility
of using computers as an aid toward orderly thought in sentencing."23 He dreamed of a scientific
jurisprudence that limited the discretion of judges through a systematic and all-encompassing body
of rules, mechanically applying the law to a set of facts and thereby generating a proper sentence
without the vagaries of trial-judge decisionmaking.
In practice, however, Judge Frankel's vision has proved to be more fantasy than reality. The Sentencing
commission has never been insulated from politics, and Frankel's mechanical sentencing regime subtracts
precisely what is needed most in the human drama of punishment-moral judgment.
to lead the charge for a congressional overhaul of federal sentencing as it then existed. Although
his initial bill was defeated, Senator Kennedy continued the campaign for sentencing reform, compromising
here and there, and eventually garnering the support of an odd coalition of political luminaries
including Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.).26 Yet even
with modifications to suit the needs of disparate interest groups, the Sentencing Reform Act barely
passed as a rider to a general crime control bill.27
In classic congressional style, the act presented an extravagant set of legislative objectives
and statutory requirements. Among its goals were to create a system that (1) promoted respect for
the law; (2) offered a clear statement of the purposes of punishment as well as the available kinds
and lengths of sentences; (3) ensured that the offender, federal officials, and the public "are certain
about the sentence and the reasons for it"; (4) met the sometimes conflicting demands of retribution,
deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation; (5) provided trial judges with "a full range of sentencing
options from which to select the most appropriate sentence in a particular case"; and (6) eliminated
"unwarranted sentence disparities" between otherwise similarly situated criminals.28
The act ended indeterminate sentencing in the federal system, eliminating parole and requiring
that judges set a specific term to be served in full (with a small allowance for good behavior) subject
to appellate review. The act also established the U.S. Sentencing Commission-an "independent commission
in the judicial branch"29-that was charged with promulgating guidelines that limited the punishment
range to 25 percent of the maximum sentence.30 These guidelines were supposed to capture pertinent
aspects of the offender and the offense, and toward that end, Congress instructed the commission
to "consider" the relevance of various factors surrounding the crime and the characteristics of the
criminal, such as age, education, vocational skills, mental and emotional problems, physical condition,
previous employment record, and family ties and responsibilities.31
By statute, the commission included two ex officio members and seven voting members, the latter
composed of three sitting federal judges and no more than four individuals from the same party.32
The enormous task facing the original commissioners was exacerbated by a deadline of a mere 18 months
in which to formulate a whole new federal sentencing system. From the start, the original commission
was mired in the confusing directives of the act and its legislative history, divided over the relevance
and application of punishment philosophy, and dogged by critics who saw the entire enterprise as
unconstitutional, unwise, or both. And, as will be discussed below, the eventual work product-the
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines- showed all the scars of a political struggle within a poorly designed
institutional process.
In theory, the Sentencing Guidelines delineate an appropriate sentence for each and every case
through the application of detailed rules. Using these rules, the trial judge must first determine
which of 43 categories governs the crime, thereby providing the "base offense level" for sentencing.
The judge must next determine which of six "criminal history" categories applies to the defendant
given his prior record of offending. With that information, the judge will then turn to the "Sentencing
Table," a matrix of offense levels and criminal history scores that creates a 258-box grid of all
potential punishment ranges for federal offenders. Grade the crime and the criminal record, find
each on the grid, and where the axes meet, the applicable sentencing range will be found. The range
might then be adjusted by aggravating circumstances, such as the defendant's brandishing of a weapon,
or mitigating circumstances, such as the defendant's accepting responsibility for his criminal misconduct.
"... Mail fraud, a felony, carries a sentence of up to five years in prison and/or fines of up to
$250,000 when individuals are involved and up to 30 years in prison and/or $1,000,000 in fines when
a financial institution is involved. ..."
Mail fraud is the attempt to commit some type of fraud (deceit, concealment,
or trickery) by using the United States Postal Service (USPS) or any private or commercial interstate
mail carrier, such as Mailboxes, Etc. Mail fraud may be committed against and by both businesses
and individuals.
Mail Fraud Convictions
To be convicted of mail fraud, one must do all of the following:
Purposefully create a plan to defraud an individual or institution
Display intent to commit fraud
Mail something-for the purpose of carrying out a fraudulent scheme-through the USPS or a private
carrier
Previous Mail Fraud Cases
Case #1 According to the USPS, prosecutors proved in 2002 that a Texas man sold roughly
$6.5 million in fraudulent certificates of deposit (CDs) via the U.S. Mail to close to 80 investors
-- most of whom were senior citizens. The man, who never purchased the CDs, used portions of the
money to pay earlier investors and used the rest for personal expenses. More than 45 investors
are still owed a total of $3.5 million.
Case #2 The USPS states that two employees of the company that publishes Business Week
were charged with conspiracy to commit
securities fraud when they revealed confidential information about publicly held companies.
The pair allegedly stockpiled thousands of dollars in
kickbacks (through the U.S. Mail) after giving two co-defendants
insider trading information from an issue of Business Week the day before the issue hit newsstands.
Armed with their tips, the co-defendants bought various company stocks on a reported 43 occasions
and sold it when the magazine was released-after which stock prices soared. The trades were valued
at more than $2 million, while profits totaled $450,000.
Case #3 An Arizona man was convicted of mail fraud and sentenced to five years of supervised
probation, nine months of home detention, and $1 million in victim restitution after executing
the age-old envelope-stuffing scam. The man ran ads in national magazines, promising to send stuffing
materials to everyone who mailed money for supply costs ($18 to $36) to his fictitious company.
He mailed instructions on how to run an envelope-stuffing business but no actual materials.
Possible Punishments for Mail Fraud Crimes
Mail fraud, a felony, carries a sentence of up to five years in prison and/or fines of up
to $250,000 when individuals are involved and up to 30 years in prison and/or $1,000,000 in fines
when a financial institution is involved.
Private immigration detention facilities may be bad - but they're probably not going anywhere.
That, in essence, was the conclusion of a much-anticipated review of the Department of Homeland Security's reliance on private
companies to detain an immigrant detainee population that's reaching historic highs, which the president-elect is promising to
escalate to even greater levels.
The report, produced by a panel of law enforcement, national security, and military experts, was commissioned by the Department
of Homeland Security on the heels of a similar review by the Department of Justice in August.
In that report, the DOJ found that private prisons "simply do not provide the same level of correctional services, programs,
and resources," "do not save substantially on costs," and "do not maintain the same level of safety and security" as facilities
operated by the Bureau of Prisons. The Justice Department said it would begin to gradually phase out its own private contracts
- which make up a fraction of private prison companies' business when compared to federal immigration detention centers.
The DHS advisory committee
report , released last
week, raised similar criticisms of the billion-dollar private prison industry, but was more fatalistic in its conclusions.
"Much could be said for a fully government-owned and government-operated detention model, if one were starting a new detention
system from scratch," said the report. "But of course we are not starting anew."
Some of them are a little complicated - especially the definition of loss. If you aren't sure what
the right way to read these is, the commentary can give you some guidance. You can find it
here
.
There are more specific fraud guidelines that apply in more specific cases.
§2B1.1. Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft; Offenses Involving
Stolen Property; Property Damage or Destruction; Fraud and Deceit; Forgery; Offenses Involving Altered
or Counterfeit Instruments Other than Counterfeit Bearer Obligations of the United States
(a) Base Offense Level:
(1) 7 , if (A) the defendant was convicted of an offense referenced
to this guideline; and (B) that offense of conviction has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment
of 20 years or more; or
(2) 6 , otherwise. (b) Specific
Offense Characteristics (1) If the loss exceeded $5,000, increase
the offense level as follows:
Loss (Apply the Greatest)
Increase in Level
(A)
$5,000 or less
no increase
(B)
More than $5,000
add 2
(C)
More than $10,000
add 4
(D)
More than $30,000
add 6
(E)
More than $70,000
add 8
(F)
More than $120,000
add 10
(G)
More than $200,000
add 12
(H)
More than $400,000
add 14
(I)
More than $1,000,000
add 16
(J)
More than $2,500,000
add 18
(K)
More than $7,000,000
add 20
(L)
More than $20,000,000
add 22
(M)
More than $50,000,000
add 24
(N)
More than $100,000,000
add 26
(O)
More than $200,000,000
add 28
(P)
More than $400,000,000
add 30 .
(2) (Apply the greatest) If the offense–
(A) (i) involved 10 or more victims; or (ii) was committed
through mass-marketing, increase by 2 levels;
(B) involved 50 or more victims, increase by 4 levels;
or
(C) involved 250 or more victims, increase by 6 levels.
(3) If the offense involved a theft from the person of another,
increase by 2 levels.
(4) If the offense involved receiving stolen property,
and the defendant was a person in the business of receiving and selling stolen property, increase
by 2 levels.
(5) If the offense involved misappropriation of a trade
secret and the defendant knew or intended that the offense would benefit a foreign government,
foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, increase by 2 levels.
(6) If the offense involved theft of, damage to, destruction
of, or trafficking in, property from a national cemetery or veterans' memorial, increase by 2
levels.
(7) If (A) the defendant was convicted of an offense under
18 U.S.C. § 1037; and (B) the offense involved obtaining electronic mail addresses through improper
means, increase by 2 levels.
(8) If (A) the defendant was convicted of a Federal health
care offense involving a Government health care program; and (B) the loss under subsection (b)(1)
to the Government health care program was (i) more than $1,000,000, increase by 2 levels; (ii)
more than $7,000,000, increase by 3 levels; or (iii) more than $20,000,000, increase by 4 levels.
(9) If the offense involved (A) a misrepresentation that
the defendant was acting on behalf of a charitable, educational, religious, or political organization,
or a government agency; (B) a misrepresentation or other fraudulent action during the course of
a bankruptcy proceeding; (C) a violation of any prior, specific judicial or administrative order,
injunction, decree, or process not addressed elsewhere in the guidelines; or (D) a misrepresentation
to a consumer in connection with obtaining, providing, or furnishing financial assistance for
an institution of higher education, increase by 2 levels. If the resulting offense level
is less than level 10 , increase to level 10 .
(10) If (A) the defendant relocated, or participated in relocating,
a fraudulent scheme to another jurisdiction to evade law enforcement or regulatory officials;
(B) a substantial part of a fraudulent scheme was committed from outside the United States; or
(C) the offense otherwise involved sophisticated means, increase by 2 levels. If the resulting
offense level is less than level 12 , increase to level 12 .
(11) If the offense involved (A) the possession or use of any (i) device-making
equipment, or (ii) authentication feature; (B) the production or trafficking of any (i) unauthorized
access device or counterfeit access device, or (ii) authentication feature; or (C)(i) the unauthorized
transfer or use of any means of identification unlawfully to produce or obtain any other means
of identification, or (ii) the possession of 5 or more means of identification that unlawfully
were produced from, or obtained by the use of, another means of identification, increase by 2
levels. If the resulting offense level is less than level 12 , increase to level 12 .
(12) If the offense involved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 1040,
increase by 2 levels. If the resulting offense level is less than level 12 , increase to
level 12 .
(13) If the offense involved an organized scheme to steal or to receive
stolen (A) vehicles or vehicle parts; or (B) goods or chattels that are part of a cargo shipment,
increase by 2 levels. If the resulting offense level is less than level 14 , increase to
level 14 .
(14) If the offense involved (A) the conscious or reckless risk of
death or serious bodily injury; or (B) possession of a dangerous weapon (including a firearm)
in connection with the offense, increase by 2 levels. If the resulting offense level is
less than level 14 , increase to level 14 .
(15) (Apply the greater) If– (A)
the defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from one or more financial institutions
as a result of the offense, increase by 2 levels; or
(B) the offense (i) substantially jeopardized the safety
and soundness of a financial institution; (ii) substantially endangered the solvency or financial
security of an organization that, at any time during the offense, (I) was a publicly traded company;
or (II) had 1,000 or more employees; or (iii) substantially endangered the solvency or financial
security of 100 or more victims, increase by 4 levels.
(C) The cumulative adjustments from application of both
subsections (b)(2) and (b)(15)(B) shall not exceed 8 levels, except as provided in subdivision
(D).
(D) If the resulting offense level determined under subdivision
(A) or (B) is less than level 24 , increase to level 24 . (16) If (A)
the defendant was convicted of an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and the offense involved an
intent to obtain personal information, or (B) the offense involved the unauthorized public dissemination
of personal information, increase by 2 levels.
(17) (A) (Apply the greatest) If
the defendant was convicted of an offense under: (i) 18 U.S.C.
§ 1030, and the offense involved a computer system used to maintain or operate a critical infrastructure,
or used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national
defense, or national security, increase by 2 levels.
(ii) 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A), increase by 4 levels.
(iii) 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and the offense caused a substantial disruption
of a critical infrastructure, increase by 6 levels. (B) If
subdivision (A)(iii) applies, and the offense level is less than level 24 , increase to level
24 . (18) If the offense involved– (A)
a violation of securities law and, at the time of the offense, the defendant was (i) an officer
or a director of a publicly traded company; (ii) a registered broker or dealer, or a person associated
with a broker or dealer; or (iii) an investment adviser, or a person associated with an investment
adviser; or
(B) a violation of commodities law and, at the time of
the offense, the defendant was (i) an officer or a director of a futures commission merchant or
an introducing broker; (ii) a commodities trading advisor; or (iii) a commodity pool operator,
increase by 4 levels.
(c) Cross References
(1) If (A) a firearm, destructive device, explosive material,
or controlled substance was taken, or the taking of any such item was an object of the offense;
or (B) the stolen property received, transported, transferred, transmitted, or possessed was a
firearm, destructive device, explosive material, or controlled substance, apply §2D1.1 (Unlawful
Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit
These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy), §2D2.1 (Unlawful Possession; Attempt or Conspiracy),
§2K1.3 (Unlawful Receipt, Possession, or Transportation of Explosive Materials; Prohibited Transactions
Involving Explosive Materials), or §2K2.1 (Unlawful Receipt, Possession, or Transportation of
Firearms or Ammunition; Prohibited Transactions Involving Firearms or Ammunition), as appropriate.
(2) If the offense involved arson, or property damage by
use of explosives, apply §2K1.4 (Arson; Property Damage by Use of Explosives), if the resulting
offense level is greater than that determined above.
(3) If (A) neither subdivision (1) nor (2) of this subsection
applies; (B) the defendant was convicted under a statute proscribing false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statements or representations generally ( e.g. , 18 U.S.C. § 1001, § 1341, § 1342, or §
1343); and (C) the conduct set forth in the count of conviction establishes an offense specifically
covered by another guideline in Chapter Two (Offense Conduct), apply that other guideline.
(4) If the offense involved a cultural heritage resource
or a paleontological resource, apply §2B1.5 (Theft of, Damage to, or Destruction of, Cultural
Heritage Resources or Paleontological Resources; Unlawful Sale, Purchase, Exchange, Transportation,
or Receipt of Cultural Heritage Resources or Paleontological Resources), if the resulting offense
level is greater than that determined above.
"... The guidelines themselves allow the defense attorney to argue for what is known as a "downward departure" in the event that special circumstances exist as contemplated by the guidelines requiring the guidelines to be adjusted downward in favor of the Defendant. Such departures can be rare, emphasizing the need to have someone with a working knowledge of the guidelines providing you representation. ..."
In addition to the sentencing provisions contained within the Federal Wire and
Mail Fraud statutes
, the Court is required to calculate a range of punishment by using the United States Federal
Sentencing Guidelines. Only experienced federal criminal attorneys are capable of navigating the
sentencing guidelines for wire and mail fraud charges. In short, the guidelines were prepared by
the sentencing commission in an attempt to remedy perceived sentencing disparities across the country
and particularly in relation to white collar defendants.
While these guidelines are no longer mandatory, it is a requirement of a federal sentencing that
the guidelines be properly calculated and considered by the sentencing judge. The sentence range
is calculated by considering many factors of the crime for which the defendant was convicted. The
most common questions that must be answered to properly calculate the guideline range are:
How many mail or wire fraud victims were there?
What was the total monetary loss to the victims of the fraud?
Are there any special characteristics of the victim? (i.e. Were they elderly)
What was the degree of participation of the Defendant in the mail fraud?
Did the Defendant recruit others to commit the wire fraud with him?
Was the wire fraud committed using a sophisticated means?
Has the Defendant ever been in trouble before?
Only after answering these basic questions (and more) can the sentencing court calculate the range
of punishment recommended within these guidelines for a wire fraud or mail fraud defendant.
An experienced white collar criminal attorney is necessary to advocate on behalf of the defendant
in convincing the Court why the guideline range should be as low as possible.
The guidelines themselves allow the defense attorney to argue for what is known as a "downward
departure" in the event that special circumstances exist as contemplated by the guidelines requiring
the guidelines to be adjusted downward in favor of the Defendant. Such departures can be rare, emphasizing
the need to have someone with a working knowledge of the guidelines providing you representation.
The need for an experienced federal criminal lawyer is even more evident when you consider that
the guidelines are now only advisory, giving the sentencing judge the authority to sentence a defendant
either above or below the recommended guideline range, even in the event a downward departure is
not warranted. This is referred to as a "
variance ."
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
What I don't understand is how Michael Shkreli, CEO, is found guilty of financial fraud against investors in 2018 but not one CEO of a bank–not Goldman Sachs's CEO, not Citigroup's CEO, not JP Morgan Chase's CEO, not Wells Fargo's CEO and not Lehman Brothers' CEO–was found guilty of committing Accounting Control Fraud and/or mortgage fraud after the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-8. Amazing! But there's not much satisfaction in such a small price to pay for fraud (7 years) that ruins other people's lives permanently. What is also amazing is that it is not illegal to price a drug out of the reach of most users just for the sake of making a huge profit!